Pfizer at Goldman Sachs Conference: Strategic Insights on Drug Pricing and Growth

On Monday, 09 June 2025, Pfizer Inc. (NYSE:PFE) participated in the Goldman Sachs 46th Annual Global Healthcare Conference. CEO Albert Bourla and U.S. Pharma Analyst Assad Heather discussed Pfizer’s strategic outlook amid evolving drug pricing policies and market conditions. The dialogue highlighted Pfizer’s resilience and growth strategies, balanced by the challenges of regulatory changes and market competition.

Key Takeaways

• Pfizer is actively navigating potential impacts from the Most Favored Nation (MFN) executive order, focusing on regulatory strategies to mitigate risks.
• The company is committed to maintaining its financial guidance for 2025, with significant emphasis on cost control and revenue streams.
• Strategic acquisitions, including the 3S Bio deal, are crucial for expanding Pfizer’s product portfolio, particularly in cardiometabolic and obesity sectors.
• Pfizer’s product pipeline is robust, with promising developments in treatments for multiple myeloma and bladder cancer.
• The company remains dedicated to shareholder value, prioritizing dividend growth and disciplined capital allocation.

Financial Results and Outlook

• 2025 Guidance: Pfizer is confident in meeting its 2025 financial targets, driven by strong cost management and diverse revenue streams. The impact of COVID-19 remains uncertain, with revenue projections heavily reliant on late-year performance.
• COVID-19 Vaccines: Despite disagreements with CDC recommendations, Pfizer anticipates minimal disruption in vaccine demand, though future COVID-19 waves pose potential challenges.
• Cost Cuts: The company aims to achieve $1.7 billion in operational expense savings and $1.5 billion in manufacturing efficiencies through technology and process improvements over the next two years.

Operational Updates

• External Environment and Drug Pricing: Ongoing discussions about the MFN executive order could significantly influence U.S. and international drug pricing. Pfizer advocates for increased European spending on innovative medicines and is prepared to adjust operations based on tariff outcomes.
• M&A and Business Development: Pfizer’s acquisition of a PD-1 VEGF bispecific asset from 3S Bio for $1.2 billion is expected to enhance its ADC portfolio. The company is exploring additional acquisitions in the $10 billion to $15 billion range, with a focus on cardiometabolic and obesity markets.

Future Outlook

• Product Pipeline Updates: Key developments include the anticipated Phase 2 readouts for Oral GLP-1 next year and a new indication for Elrexfio in multiple myeloma, potentially tripling its patient base. Vyndaqel remains strong despite competitive pressures, and a new subcutaneous PD-1 treatment for bladder cancer offers improved patient convenience.

Q&A Highlights

• CEO Albert Bourla emphasized the importance of innovation and strategic capital allocation, stating, "Uncertainty always punishes," while reiterating Pfizer’s commitment to maintaining and growing its dividend.
• Bourla reassured investors of Pfizer’s disciplined approach to acquisitions, noting, "We don’t want to overpay," highlighting a cautious yet strategic investment stance.

For more in-depth insights, readers are encouraged to refer to the full conference call transcript.

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

Assad Heather, U.S. Pharma Analyst, Goldman Sachs: Great. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our forty sixth Annual Global Healthcare Conference. My name is Assad Heather. I’m The U. S.

Pharma Analyst here at Goldman Sachs. And we are very privileged to have Albert Bula with us to kick up this conference. Albert’s the CEO of Pfizer. Albert, thank you for being with us.

Albert Bourla, CEO, Pfizer: Great pleasure.

Assad Heather, U.S. Pharma Analyst, Goldman Sachs: Albert, we have about thirty five minutes, so I wanna start with a big picture question for you on the external environment, which I think is something that everyone is trying to figure out. You’re the perfect the perfect curtain raiser for this conference given your role as the chair of the pharma pharma lobbying group. You have a very unique perspective, and you have front row seats on what’s going on in Washington, D. C. With respect to policy and all these overhangs on the sector.

So level set for us to kick the conversation off on where things stand in your most recent conversations with me with the administration, particularly as it relates to this drug pricing MFN executive order. What should we be expecting to hear this week? I believe this week marks the thirty day mark from the time that the executive order was first put out. And what are the range of outcomes that the industry is expecting, both near term as well as how this plays out over the longer term?

Albert Bourla, CEO, Pfizer: Yeah. Apparently, there is a lot of anxiety with investors, which is very obvious in, the multiples of all the pharma that have been depressed to levels that, I think they don’t make sense, but they are there because uncertainty always punishes. Okay. So the Trump brings radical change, and there are a lot of risks with that and opportunity because the status quo is changing. On the risks, you mentioned one of the most important, the MFN and the executive order that came on that.

But there’s also don’t forget the tariffs, but it is something that is hanging in there. I can speak about both. On the opportunities, there are significant opportunities with, the small molecules, large molecules exclusivity that I think the administration is very sympathetic to it, secretary Kennedy, including president Trump, etcetera. PBM reform, the same. The three forty b for the first time has been recognized as a major issue that needs to be resolved.

And, deregulations and ex expedition of, the regulatory approach, so those are the the opportunities. And we are working to make sure that we mitigate the risks, and we don’t let them happen. And we work also equally intensively to make sure that, the opportunities materialize. Now on the MFN, I don’t know, what we will hear in thirty days. I don’t believe we can hear months because the administration already started series of meetings with companies.

Pfizer went there Mhmm. And other companies went as well. The meetings were cordial, but they were not digging into the substance yet. It is just trying to understand high level ideas and no commitments. So what could be the outcomes of something like that?

It’s you know, could be from nothing to to to to very big. There are two aspects. One, it is what will with the same effect. One, it is what will happen to The US prices, if they can come downwards towards, let’s say, European or international prices. The other is what happens to international price, and they can come upwards more, close to to the and we are working on both.

And there are different parts of the administration that are handling one versus the other. The secretary of of health, the doctor Oz, those are the people that are handling what happens with the MFN in The US. Secretary Latnick, The US Trade Representative, even secretary Besson are dealing with, negotiations with the other countries that include right now, how they can take their prices up. And The UK was the first example of a deal that happened.

Assad Heather, U.S. Pharma Analyst, Goldman Sachs: So I guess on on that on that point, maybe just double click on that. I guess the industry has been adamant about, you know, European countries raising prices to pay for their share of innovation. But, you know, just maybe talk us through the mechanism of how that happens. I understand that happened in The UK, but how does that happen across the rest of the continent? And then one question we’re also getting from investors is can European budgets actually support higher drug prices?

Albert Bourla, CEO, Pfizer: Look. First of all, yes, they can. But, they have very big budgets, and we represent in UK, point 3% of their, GDP per capita. That’s how much they spend on medicine. So, yes, they can increase prices.

Are they willing to do it? Of course not. They don’t. They are having, let’s say, kind of free riding all these years, and they want to continue that. And then we had the situation, but the US government never stood up to them about drug price.

Never. Until now. So every time that there were trade negotiations, it was all about steel. It was all about cars. It was all about AI.

Never about, medicines. This time is different. And, I don’t know how much passion they will continue demonstrating, but in my discussions with them, they have quite a bit. So they don’t like it, and they think that they should the others should should go up. Now I don’t think that the discussion should be that, product x in The UK has this price or in Germany has this price and in The US has this price because you will be lost into that situation of how many products and where is high, where is low, which is, all over the place.

But, as a concept that the country should spend a percentage of their GDP per capita, as for example, they have requested for defense in NATO, so you need to spend 5% of your GDP into into, let’s say, defense. A mechanism that, everyone should have a percentage that they spent on innovative medicines. And then, of course, every country can decide how they want to allocate that. And if they will do it by removing the clawbacks, which is very common in Europe, if they will do it by removing some mandatory rebates, or if they will re do it by increasing prices. But that should be the demand of the US government towards them.

And this is what we have explained. Just to give you a number to understand the realities, US is is spending point eight approximately, of, GDP per capita on innovative medicines, or let’s say, ten years within their launch. Germany, point four. So it’s a big difference, and, they need to step it up. By the way, Italy and Spain, point five.

Assad Heather, U.S. Pharma Analyst, Goldman Sachs: I guess in a world of MFN, would Pfizer potentially rethink launch strategies in in in the in Europe? Would you pretend consider walking away from countries if there’s a significant disparity between US and European prices?

Albert Bourla, CEO, Pfizer: I think yes. I I don’t think we will walk out from, we will remove our products from the market there. We will just remove them from reimbursement. We will leave them in open market, and they will the products will be available at the price that if they don’t want to reimburse, let them not do it, which is how in Europe things will work. It’s not something that we would like, and it is not something that we want to go there at all.

We prefer to find a solution that can motivate Europeans to do a little bit more, can motivate, here pharmaceutical companies to reduce their prices, but also, in a way that that is sustainable for the industry. And, you know, don’t forget something which is very important with lower prices. In Europe, let’s say they pay a price by having low prices. 43% of medicines that they are approved by EMA are on average available are reimbursed. And in Europe, reimbursement is available.

Right? So approximately 43%. So it’s but those medicines that they are in the list, they are available to all. There are not three step edits and pre authorized, and, you need to pay out of your pocket, the entire amount, the first two thousand dollars or $5,000. These things, they don’t exist.

So the volumes are tremendous. It’s right now, the abandonment in The US for scripts that they are, out of pocket it’s, let’s say, north of hundred $50, it’s 50%. It’s a very, very huge amount of abandonment that you have. So if you reduce prices but you open access, the impact, and I have we have calculated multiple times, is not that dramatic.

Assad Heather, U.S. Pharma Analyst, Goldman Sachs: Mhmm. And then maybe just, you know, to wrap up on the drug pricing, then just double clicking on on on you on The US, I think there’s a lot of confusion about what the mechanisms and the avenues for implementing these price changes potentially could be. In The U. S? In The U.

S. So is it people think it could get wrapped up in IRA? Maybe it’s CMMI demo project? Could it be part of the budget reconciliation process? Like so just maybe talk through high level.

What are the avenues with which we could actually see something get done?

Albert Bourla, CEO, Pfizer: First of all, there are avenues that involve legislation and avenues, which means congress, and avenues that do not. I believe with all my discussions with, with, congress leadership and congress members, there is no appetite for any legislation around that at all. And, so we need to focus at the time, the highest possibilities, what they what can happen with, regulations. Right? And the CMS has the ability to do what we call demonstration programs so that they can demonstrate something to the congress that can legislate.

Assad Heather, U.S. Pharma Analyst, Goldman Sachs: Are those mandatory or voluntary?

Albert Bourla, CEO, Pfizer: I’ll tell you. I first of all, cannot be cannot affect commercial because it’s completely out and cannot affect, part b because there is a noninterference clause that has is is there. It was lifted only for the IRA products and for nothing else. So it’s part b that legally someone can do something like that. But a demonstration program cannot be all part b products, all countries, all states because, you know, it’s a demonstration program.

It used to be a small thing so that they can demonstrate. Now we know that there is a very different appreciation of what is the authorities that this government has, and they tend to go to the extremes so they can use you know, it’s a I want to do a demonstration, and I can do everything. Yes. Those can happen. But in my discussions with them, I don’t think that they are looking to to destroy the industry.

Let me put it that way. Right? They are looking to find the solution.

Assad Heather, U.S. Pharma Analyst, Goldman Sachs: Mhmm. Okay. And then maybe just to wrap up, Albert, on the external environment, just, you know, a couple of words on tariffs. I guess, you know, you’re one of the few global pharma companies that hasn’t quantified or announced any new U. S.

Manufacturing, right? You said you’re well positioned and you don’t need to do this. So I guess the question is, I mean, do you think the administration wants to see new CapEx investments? And do you think it diminishing diminishes your negotiating leverage in any way, shape, or form?

Albert Bourla, CEO, Pfizer: I think, yes. They would like to see new new investments. They would like to see jobs creating in The US. As as I said multiple times, Pfizer has invested in the past in US manufacturing. So we have 13 sites right now.

Two are very big distribution, and but 11 are manufacturing sites in The US. But we could transfer products. It’s not without any investment in cost if you want to transfer, but, it’s not it’s very different the cost to transfer manufacturing from Ireland to a US existing facility than to build a whole new facility that will take five years, and it is a huge investment. We also invested a lot in this facility, and we’ll continue doing it. But I don’t think it makes sense to make announcements of future investments in an environment that it is very fluid.

The reality is that we are business people, and the business people will look at the environment. Can I do more investments if there is tariffs and MFN? Probably not. Can I do more investments if those things are not there? Probably, yes.

We wanted anyway to do it because of resilience of the supply networks. We saw in COVID that, you are suffering with this global network of, supply chain. And many companies, and I think what you are seeing here, it is the result of they want to have resilience in The US. So US for US, resilience in China, China for China, resilience in Europe, Europe for Europe. And, this is what we are all doing.

So we will do that. But, what can get in the way, it is if we have to reduce dramatically our investments because of tariffs or NFM. Alright.

Assad Heather, U.S. Pharma Analyst, Goldman Sachs: Let’s let’s move to Pfizer specific questions on on business trends. Yes. Albert, so I guess just starting with your ’25 guidance. On the first quarter call, you talked about ’25 guidance being derisked for the balance of the year from a financial district delivery perspective just given the very strong jumping off point that we made in the first quarter. So I guess what would challenge those core assumptions from here?

Albert Bourla, CEO, Pfizer: I think there are in P and Ls, there are elements like, revenues and and cost lines. We feel extremely good about our cost lines. We are doing very, very well in controlling them, and we’ll continue that so the margins will expand. We are also feeling very good on the revenues right now. We reported the first one, which in our projections was higher, way higher than what we were expecting for q one.

I I know that there was a misalignment with the Street, but in in our numbers was really very solid, and, you will see the second quarter. But, you know, in the marketplace, I’m sure we are following the scripts, etcetera. Mhmm. We are gaining, sir. We are maintaining, sir, when you are attacked.

We very well on the revenue. Clearly, there is a wild card, which is COVID. Mhmm. Because COVID, it is all backloaded. And, backloaded means that the biggest part of the revenues are coming on the third and fourth quarter.

And, if for any reasons that science don’t predict and, we can’t explain, there is no COVID suddenly in, the second part of, in the fall winter Yeah. That will reduce our sales, and that’s an exposure. Doesn’t seem that is the case in the last few years and doesn’t seem that is the case in Asia, but already the wave has started with a very strong, actually, very strong COVID wave with very severe symptoms. So I keep that as one of the risk factors, but that’s the only one what I see right now.

Assad Heather, U.S. Pharma Analyst, Goldman Sachs: I I just wanna press you a little bit of that given the importance of, how the COVID franchise delivers, as you said, in the back half with respect to numbers. I guess your guidance assumes steady state COVID relative to 2024. But there have also been some recent CDC recommendations with some pretty ambiguous language around who should get vaccinated, pregnant women, etcetera. Right? So how confident what gives you confidence that the demand trends are going to hold up, even if there is a Yes.

Albert Bourla, CEO, Pfizer: There are two issues. One, it is what about the science of this recommendation. The other is what will be the impact on the demand. Yeah. On the science, we have set our opinion.

We completely disagree. This is based on nothing, and, it’s just ideological and shouldn’t be there, but it is. On the impact, very, very small, almost nothing. Basically, the in the ages that they don’t recommend, the vaccination rates were very, very small, not only in terms of how much of the COVID was going there, but also what percentage of this population is getting a vaccine, which tells you what the percentage of this population that get these vaccines are people that rarely need it. People that they the doctors are worried about it.

They have an underlying condition, but it’s serious, and they really worry, and and they give it. It’s not so we don’t expect on, on that. The uncertainty on COVID is not because of these things. The uncertainties are going to have a wave or not as we always have. And, science says we are going to have Asia.

Start it, but that’s the only uncertainty.

Assad Heather, U.S. Pharma Analyst, Goldman Sachs: I think on CNN last week, in an interview, you made some, comments about and when you were getting asked about vaccines, about making some tactical moves in the near term. I was intrigued with that statement. What did they say in CNN? I think you said you’re making some tactical moves around vaccines in your interview. Can’t remember.

All right. Maybe I maybe I misunderstood it. All right. Let’s talk about cost cuts. Obviously, you’ve made some great progress on productivity improvement programs over the course of the year and operational efficiency perspective.

So that’s been a theme for a few quarters now. So maybe talk us through what innings of that we’re in right now And how much more opportunity is there to sort of squeeze more costs out of the enterprise?

Albert Bourla, CEO, Pfizer: We we announced that we are going to be head by in the next two years, incremental to what we said, 1.7 billions on OpEx, and that’s, 1.2 in SI and A that is is going to the bottom line, basically, and 500 millions in R and D that will be reinvested. So it’s improving the productivity of R and D. And, we also announced that we are going to see an improvement in margins Mhmm. Gross margins because there is 1,500,000,000.0 goal in manufacturing. And we feel very good that those targets will be achieved as, we have achieved those targets until now.

So we are very good in doing that. And the thing that makes me even more proud on that is we do it without affecting the performance of the top line. Mhmm. Because your is how we do it. It’s not that it is democracy.

Everybody a billion means 10% cut cut or 6%, seven %. You cut your cost 7%. It’s two things that are driving. One, it is deployment of technology, but it is automation, digitization, and AI, very big part of it Mhmm. Both in cost of goods and in OpEx.

And the second is simplification. You know, that these are big corporations. They have built, let’s say, significant infrastructures that they are quite complicated. There’s duplication that really cost a lot of money, and we go very, very seriously after that. So that’s why we don’t affect.

We are not reducing, for example, field forces. Right? We are not reducing the the amount that we spend in in promotions. Actually, we have a big shift in the amount that we spend from promotions, from TV to social media, where it is, the return, the ROI of social media compared to TV. It is multiple

Assad Heather, U.S. Pharma Analyst, Goldman Sachs: Mhmm.

Albert Bourla, CEO, Pfizer: Ahead. Right? So we are doing a lot of these things that allows us to reduce the cost,

Assad Heather, U.S. Pharma Analyst, Goldman Sachs: and we’ll continue doing that. Yeah. Remarkable progress on that front, certainly. Maybe we’ll move to capital allocation and just, sort of use of cash, and then I’m going to take a pause and see if there are any questions before we go through some of the rest of my questions. Just on M and A and BD, just maybe your updated view, Albert, in the context of the deal that you recently did with 3S Bio to license that PD-one VEGF bispecific.

Obviously, there’s been a tremendous amount of excitement about this class as potentially disrupting the standard of care. There’s been a flurry of recent news flow. You’re going to be paying all in about $6,000,000,000 for for this asset. So talk us through how you landed on this asset specifically and that price tag. We paid 1.2 billions.

Albert Bourla, CEO, Pfizer: I hope we will pay 6 because we will pay 6 if the whole thing is very successful and sells a lot because there are milestones over there. Right? But the 1.2, it is what, right now we put at risk plus all the development cost. I think, first of all, this is a fabulous asset. Mhmm.

It is in a class that it is highly promising. It is the only class that has demonstrated benefits against p d ones in at the decade that these p d ones are there and dominating, the landscape. There is nothing else like that. And, the data that this company had were very good, but, of course, there were data in China. So you need to know the company, and you need to make to be very careful, in China how you do the due diligence.

We send teams in China, but they spend weeks that they went to the sites. They viewed the scans one after the other. They interviewed the physicians that they run the study. So we we you didn’t do due diligence in a in a data room. We send people on-site, and we feel very comfortable.

I met the CEO. They are credible guys. So we are we feel very good about this asset. Now why this asset is strategic for us is not only because of, on itself can represent as a stand alone a very big opportunity because that’s better than PD ones if that continues to be the case and will be proven, but also because we have the largest ADC portfolio. Yep.

And our ADC portfolio is based on a payload that’s called the dotting. Yep. And the dotting has been proven, but because it creates, immunogenic cell death, it has synergistic effects with p d ones. So all these parts of results are together with, Keturoda. Right?

So with any p d ones, you you put together this ADC with a PD one, and you have much better results than if they are stand alone. So for us to have the new, let’s say, standard of immunotherapy as part of our portfolio is very strategically important given that we have all the ADCs. How does it

Assad Heather, U.S. Pharma Analyst, Goldman Sachs: affect then the summit partnership, that announcement that you had earlier this year?

Albert Bourla, CEO, Pfizer: The summit partnership was a a research collaboration. So it was not, we didn’t have any financials on their molecule, and they didn’t have any financials on our molecule. It is exactly because the ADCs and the p d ones, p d l ones, they have synergistic effects. They want it, and we want it to do a study between their molecule and one of our ADCs. And so they are given us the product.

We are running the study, and that is is is there. It’s not the discussion right now. But it was not that we had an economic interest on there. I was

Assad Heather, U.S. Pharma Analyst, Goldman Sachs: a little surprised actually to see an oncology deal before I saw we saw something in cardiometabolic or even INI, just given the vocabulary of the company recently has been sort of almost deemphasizing BD in oncology and vaccines versus INI and cardio. So maybe just talk through sort of any updated thinking there.

Albert Bourla, CEO, Pfizer: Yes. The truth is that for oncology, for us, the bar is much higher because we have plenty of assets. So we are operating in full capacity right now with R and D organizations. So it’s not that we are looking to get it. Clearly, in other areas, we have higher interest and cardiometabolic, obesity, let’s say, the internal medicine is clearly an area that we have a very high high interest.

And we are looking. Obesity, for example, we do believe that obesity is a very big area and a high unmet medical need. We do think there is a lot of risk with pricing, so we are looking at it very quickly. And all calculations and valuations that we may do or not for deals include the stress test of, pricing should go down and what happens in that case. Right?

MFN or non MFN prices, I think, because of competition. There is also a lot of players that are Mhmm. Right now emerging, particularly in China. There are there’s tremendous science on obesity, etcetera. So we are looking all of that.

But one thing, it is very clear, but we don’t, want to overpay. Mhmm. And sometimes in valuations, it’s already embedded a premium, that, is really very, very high. So we will only do it if we think that we can find a promising asset at, valuations but a disciplined approach could make sense. And the reason why to go and do it, it is because we have such a big expertise and legacy in metabolic diseases in house, but really and it’s primary care.

So place both commercial and research on the strengths of this company. This company was built on on this type of assets. Right? So, yeah, we will go for it. But we we are not going to overpay, and right now, there are a lot of crazy demands.

Assad Heather, U.S. Pharma Analyst, Goldman Sachs: Is in terms of your M and A firepower, you put bands of 10,000,000,000 to 15,000,000,000 as the ballpark. Is that is that still the consideration in the context of this? It is still

Albert Bourla, CEO, Pfizer: the consideration in the context, and already we did 1,000,000,000 of that. And I don’t think we would lie I mean, we never say never on anything, but probably I would prefer not to do one of 15, but to do few of, smaller deals, but needs to be strategic and at good value for the shareholders.

Assad Heather, U.S. Pharma Analyst, Goldman Sachs: And then I guess I have to ask you about the dividend. There still seems to be some investor debate. We’ve talked you and I have talked about this. Recognizing that this is a core part of your stated capital allocation strategy, Is is that what if any other circumstances in which you may reconsider that view?

Albert Bourla, CEO, Pfizer: Only if there’s something a catastrophe. There is no way that right now, we are very clear. We are going to maintain our dividend, and we are going to maintain a growing dividend. And is is it going to be an MFN that, kills the industry? It’s a very different story.

But under normal circumstances, of which it includes known and unknown competition costs, investments in other areas, etcetera, our deleveraging is very high priority. Our our dividend is very high priority. And we because we had we’re able to deliver very nicely, because if you saw our cash flows last year were very, very good, so we went way below our stated target for the end of the year. We went already last year. Right?

So it it it went really, really well. So that’s why we announced suddenly before this year, we can have 10 to 15,000,000,000 also on BD while maintaining our dividend, while maintaining our R and D, and while continuing delivering. So I think we are good on that front. Take a pause there and

Assad Heather, U.S. Pharma Analyst, Goldman Sachs: see if there any questions from the audience. Okay. Maybe, Albert, we can get into some of double click on some product pipeline specific areas. Just I guess just maybe to finish up on obesity, just the status of the oral GIPA, like, you know, and just how you’re thinking about this competitive positioning, timing of the readout. I think within

Albert Bourla, CEO, Pfizer: probably beginning of next year, right, the readouts. It is right now in phase two for PD L1. So excuse me. Of GLP one. On the back pocket, one.

And Both exciting. Yes. Okay.

Assad Heather, U.S. Pharma Analyst, Goldman Sachs: And then I guess on elrexvio, you’ve, you know, you’ve repeatedly talked about that being one of the more underappreciated assets in your portfolio, and you’re moving aiming to move up the treatment paradigm. So can you just maybe walk us through the strategy and the vision in multiple myeloma?

Albert Bourla, CEO, Pfizer: Yes. Erectio is right now approved and is doing quite well in a very small indication. The triple, basically, patients that they fail multiple lines of therapy, four, five, six lines of therapy. Right? So now there is a new indication that the studies should read out is event driven, but should read out by the end of the year, that is going to failing of two lines of therapy.

That is improving dramatically the commercial, opportunity because not only triples the amount of patients that are available with it, so if it is one, now it will be three, But also the duration of treatments in this population are much, much longer compared to the duration of treatments for people that they fail five or six treatments because they are, unfortunately, they don’t live that long. And that’s the second. We have four that take us all the way to the first line, etcetera. So, of course, you need to have the studies being successful. But, the probability of success, it is on the reasonably high levels, given what we have seen so far.

And the market potential, it is exponentially bigger. So that’s what I don’t think the street, has modeled appropriately. And, we went back again and again, and I asked my people, are you sure? And let’s see this assumption and that assumption and that assumption. And there is a very big difference in, the street’s assessment and what really I think and my think team thinks that the product can do.

Assad Heather, U.S. Pharma Analyst, Goldman Sachs: K. Vindaquil, just any updated thoughts in the context of the emerging competitive environment?

Albert Bourla, CEO, Pfizer: I I don’t think will be a mystery and a threat for us. It is there are already patients. I don’t think any patient will switch to from Vyndaqel to something else. But, then there is the new patients that are coming that, they will have to compete. Now they will have to compete against a physician experience of years because the same physicians will prescribe to to the new patients, and they have some familiarity with Vyndaqel.

They have to compete against our commercial muscle, which is very, very strong in the area. So, you know, I think, it’s always not the same when it is with competition or without, but this is not something that worries us, particularly in the years that we have until the patent experience.

Assad Heather, U.S. Pharma Analyst, Goldman Sachs: K. And then I guess on bladder cancer, this is an area that’s getting a little bit more interest. You know, you’re approaching this space with your subcu PD-one. So you know, and you have this upcoming readout with for PAT7 in muscle invasive. So can you just maybe frame your perspectives

Albert Bourla, CEO, Pfizer: and the outlook for the potential? I will. And then I’ll start with PATCEV, everybody understands the potential. It’s more or less the story with Orexfib, the new indication of PATCEV. It is really increasing significantly the population and the duration of treatment, so that’s one.

But I want to speak about the subcutaneous that, people have they they think the the way that they see it, okay, it is a subcutaneous alternative, so probably will not do, that well. This is not the point, and this is not why we developed it. We developed it particularly for use by urologists. Bladder cancer, when it is non muscle invasive bladder cancer, is not treated by oncologists. Not at large, almost dominantly, it’s treated by urologists.

In the current, standard of care, it is through, they they basically putting into the bladder BCD, right, which is something that is killing the There is significant benefits if you include a PD one. The problem is that the current PD ones, they need an infusion center, And the urologist, they don’t have infusion centers. So in their mind, when there is a need for PD one, they need to refer their clients to go to, oncologist so that, they can use an infusion center to give also the PD one. We have done repeatedly market research. If you had a subcutaneous that you can give it in your practice as you are doing as you are giving, the intra bladder, infusion, would you use it, or would you continue?

Overwhelmingly, they will use in the practice. Which, is easy to understand and believe. They have control, and they don’t need to send their customers somewhere else. So that’s the value of, these subcutaneous because it has been developed in this specific indication and had spectacular results. So I think that’s also will be a good surprise.

Okay. Well, that’s that’s a

Assad Heather, U.S. Pharma Analyst, Goldman Sachs: good maybe a great place to wrap up, Abhil. We’re just about time. Thank you very much for that perspective. Very greatly appreciate you having you here. Thank you very much.

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