Gilead Sciences, Inc. (GILD) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Great. Well, thanks, everyone, for joining us. I'm Terence Flynn, Morgan Stanley's U.S. biopharma analyst. I'm very pleased to be hosting Gilead this morning. From the company, we have Dan O'Day, the company's Chairman and CEO; and Johanna Mercier, the company's Chief Commercial Officer. Before we get started, for important disclosures, please see the Morgan Stanley research disclosure website at www.morganstanley.com/researchdisclosures. If you have any questions, please reach out to your Morgan Stanley sales representative. But thank you both so much for making the trip out here to the East Coast. Glad the weather has cooperated. So we'll take it. But Dan, I thought maybe you could just start off. Obviously, the company has been on this diversification journey now for several years with you and your team. And so maybe give us an update on kind of the progress you've made. And then as you look ahead over the next 12 to 18 months, what's left in terms of kind of your focus points for the outlook here?

Sure. Absolutely. Again, Terence, thanks for having us. Delighted to be here with Johanna. It has been a journey over the past 6 years. It's a very different company than it was when we both started around 6 years ago, building upon the strength of Gilead's past, but kind of position it for the future. And I would say today, when I just think about the totality and then I'll break down the pieces, I mean, we have a very strong balance sheet. We have robust cash flows. We're now in a position of disciplined expense management after some purposeful kind of growth on the expense management side. No major patent expiries until the end of 2033 puts us in a really good position to expect growth from the company across all 3 of our therapeutic areas. So that's kind of the take-home message. On the diversification front, there's a couple of comments I want to make there. One is often when we think about diversification for companies, we think about diversifying into different therapeutic areas. Certainly, that's part of our objective given the size of the company when I inherited it. But before I get there, let me just first talk about an element of diversification that I think is also critically important, and it gets to this concept of durability of the HIV business. And so the team and I have spent a lot of time thinking about how we diversify our HIV portfolio and how we make it durable even beyond, again, the end of 2033 Biktarvy patent expiry. Lenacapavir was, of course, well on its way when we came here. And since then, we produced this portfolio over the past 6 years with the team of really strong options for both HIV prevention and treatment. Obviously, the Yeztugo launch for twice a year prevention is up and running, and we'll talk about that, I know. And we have started a Phase III trial for the once-a-year HIV prevention, which could come to us as quickly as 2028. But we have basically 8 different programs now with lenacapavir backbone across different HIV treatment paradigms as well, everything from another option for daily oral, which is BIC/LEN, but then once weekly and once monthly oral and once every 3- and 6-month injectables. The reason that's important is because it means we're diversifying our business on top of and slowly away from Biktarvy between now and 2033, which means even though we have that time of expiry, we're navigating that in a way that we can be very strong and making that business durable well beyond 2033 into the end of the next decade with lenacapavir in the backbone and the IP base. And then beyond that, I think I'm really pleased with how the team has more than doubled the portfolio overall and certainly within oncology. Some -- we had probably the best clinical execution quarter we had since I've been here in the second quarter of this year with really outstanding results in the first-line triple-negative breast cancer setting with Trodelvy, continued good results with imido-cel in multiple myeloma. So I think in oncology, with many more readouts to come in the next 12 to 18 months in cell therapy and outside of cell therapy, that's really coming to shape. And importantly, we've invested a lot in our late research early development, both through internal investment and appropriate kind of external acquisitions into the partnerships into that area. And the final piece of the puzzle is the inflammation piece of the puzzle, which is a little bit further out, which is fine. We need further out diversification as we go into 2030 and beyond. But some really interesting medicines and molecules there in early development and we'll see how they play out over the next year, 1.5 years, things like alpha-4-beta-7, IRAK4 and also the STAT6 program. So bottom line is from a portfolio diversification. We're a very different company than we were in 2019. We still have a lot to do, and we're very focused on commercial execution with our kind of 4 PrEP launches of Yeztugo, Livdelzi, Trodelvy first-line and anito-cel. And we're also diversified better in terms of the structure of our business, our P&L, our expense base. We purposely kind of invested significantly over the past 4 or 5 years to get us to a stage where at kind of commensurate investment levels with a company our size. But now we're kind of optimizing that expense structure at that high level. So I really like where we're at, and I think you can expect more of that, more focus on growth on the top line, more focused on continued margin in the top quartile, including kind of EPS, strong EPS growth. And I think that's the Gilead of today.

Great. Perfect framing. I guess one -- I just wanted to follow up on inflammation. I think, as you said, you kind of had an earlier-stage portfolio. You guys have some history here in that space with a JAK inhibitor as well. As you think about that vertical, are you content to have it be a longer-term growth driver? Or do you see a need to bring additional scale to the inflammation side? Because, again, I think that's one thing I've seen through the years is the benefit of scale and immunology in particular versus maybe some other therapeutic areas. So how do you think about that having this longer-term portfolio versus maybe having some with a little more scale near term?

Look, I think we're very confident or comfortable with letting those earlier-stage programs read out. I mean, we know the landscape trying to jump into the landscape in a major way in a late-stage program, there aren't a lot of assets that exist out there. Our focus is scientifically from an inflammation perspective to look at novel mechanisms and potentially combining those mechanisms to get through what we've seen over the past 20 years are really efficacy caps and a lot of disease states and inflammation. So we need to play that out over time. I take your point on critical mass eventually in that area. But we don't need to jump start that. We'll get there over a natural evolution, including some of our work potentially in cell therapy and autoimmune. So we have a number of different mechanisms that will play out over time.

Okay. Great. Policy, obviously, is still front and center here. I think from an industry perspective, it's on tariffs and MFN, but then I'd say from a Gilead perspective, it's more around Medicaid and maybe USPSTF. And so maybe you could just take those in turn or tag team talking first through kind of tariffs and MFN in terms of any visibility we might have in terms of reaching a resolution on some of these things. And then on Medicaid and USPSTF from a policy side, I know you guys have made comments before that you feel pretty good about the position of the business over a medium to longer term. But maybe just tell us why that is, given some of these cross currents that we keep reading about and hearing about.

Yes, terrific. And I will invite Johanna to join me in response to the... it's like a huge question. But let me just try to take it into 3 buckets that you mentioned at a high level and then turn it over to Johanna to fill in some of the details. First of all, I think you inferred it, but I just want to make sure the audience understands why we are perhaps affected differently than other companies from a potential tariff perspective. So let's just use that as one example. And the reason for that is that compared to the rest of the industry, we are a bit differentiated in that 80% of our IP is actually domiciled here in the United States. We recognize 80% of our profits in the United States. That's different than a lot of our peer group. And as a result, we're actually a productive taxpayer in the United States. We have a marginal tax rate of around 20%. And so while we'll continue to optimize that from potential tariff involvement by looking at country of origin and some of our products for U.S. supply, I think we're less exposed on that, and we don't have to do a fire drill to get there, if you so to speak. On the MFN, I think the real question is what is it? And I think we are obviously leaning into discussions with the administration. We believe strongly in the concept of looking for ways to reduce out-of-pocket costs for patients here in the United States, that's one of the right thing to do. Number two, from the standpoint of the industry sustainability, I think it's things we need to address like the Part D reform that Johanna and her team are kind of growing through despite a significant effect on our top line for this year. So those types of changes will be leaning into and trying to decide where those can come from. There's not a lot more component right now on MFN. We'll kind of see how it goes. The other thing we're leaning into and we've done not just as a result of the temporal aspect of MFN is we're constantly trying to find ways for value to be recognized by other countries around the world. And in particular situations, we've struggled to launch our products in certain markets because there just isn't a system that kind of values that innovation. So we welcome support from the U.S. government and others that can help us along that journey, but we do believe that value should be recognized more robustly outside the United States and that we should get at some of the fundamental issues associated with our health care systems that are less than functional, whether that's out of patient costs for patients or whether it's the fact that the industry subsidizes a large part of the insurance industry and/or hospitals in this country. I mean -- so I think that 340B reform and PBM reform. So we'll continue to look for sensible ways with multiple people around the table to kind of address that. On the Medicaid, USPSTF, let me just tee those up. I mean the first one is on the Medicaid side aspects of our business are more exposed to Medicaid. For instance, HIV treatment, as we've said is around mid-20%. Having said that, prevention is more like 10%, 5%, 10%. So it's much lower. So different aspects of our business have different exposure to Medicaid. What I can say on Medicaid is that, obviously, it's a very important program in the United States, number one. Number two, there have been adjustments to Medicaid over the years. Even actually, if you look at post-COVID, there was kind of a redetermination process where people had to kind of requalify, if you like, for Medicaid. And in particular, when it comes to infectious diseases like HIV, there are a variety of programs that help people they may need to switch from Medicaid to another program in this country. And there's a reason for that. The reason for that is that people that stop taking medicines that have HIV get very sick and die. Also, if they stop taking their medicines, they become more infectious and can infect other people. So there are clear reasons for why, particularly with the HIV class that there are multiple kind of safety nets that are built into the program. So we'll have to see. And the other thing is the Medicaid changes in the big beautiful bill. I'll just remind you, happen in kind of late 2026, early 2027. So we're navigating that, Johanna and her team. And then the final thing is on USPSTF. For those of you that don't know, it's a guideline that encourages a variety of products, not just HIV, that encourages utilization of important prevention or diagnosis to prevent diseases. In particular, for HIV, it was established somewhere around 2021, puts HIV PrEP into a kind of a category A, which is a high category. And that's been the case since 2021. It was clarified a bit in 2023. But what happened specifically, I think where a lot of the talk is, is there was a FAQ or a published FAQ that was published around October of 2024. And in that regard, the current PrEP medicines that were approved at that time were included as named entities in the USPSTF. Lenacapavir was not approved at that time. So of course, it isn't in the FAQ today. And we feel that the policy is broad to include all PrEP options, so it is inclusive of lenacapavir. And we presume that at a future update that likely lenacapavir could be added because it's one of the most effective PrEP options. I mean the clinical trial data is very, very strong in this regard. And it's important to note that regardless of USPSTF, the case for PrEP is very strong from both a person standpoint and a pharmacoeconomic standpoint. For every HIV infection that you prevent, you save about $1.1 million in lifetime costs. People don't get rid of HIV. They have to be treated for the right remainder of their life. So I think there are strong reasons for obviously, commercial and government payers to support PrEP in general. And PrEP was growing before that -- the whole market class was growing before that USPSTF FAQ was published at that period of time. So Johanna and her team are working very closely with all these items and making sure that the merits of lenacapavir are off to a good start. I know I covered a lot, but... would you like to comment on the HIV launch -- HIV launch process so far.

Just one on the Medicaid side because I think it's -- I just want to ask around on the state level, I mean, there is some data that we found that it looks like California and New York account for maybe like 1/3 of Biktarvy and the treatment side in Medicaid. Is that in the right ballpark? Meaning like everyone is looking at the high level, but when you go state by state, maybe as you know, there's ADAP programs, other means by which people can access these medications. And maybe just walk us through, are there any other like kind of safeguards at the state level that can maybe help if there were to be a lot to covered?

I think that's what's important. In HIV and Medicaid specific. And to your point, California and New York are 2 of the top 4 states for HIV that we track very closely, both in treatment and prevention. From an access standpoint, the piece that's important is there's a lot of programs that have been developed from years before to actually support anybody who's underinsured or uninsured who falls out completely out of Medicaid. And so an example of that, and this is only for treatment, it doesn't apply for prevention, but around ADAP programs, so the age drug assistance programs that are available for people who might need a backup plan. And sometimes they cover for underinsured, so they kind of bridge or uninsured completely, they would support. And so those are state-by-state programs that are available. And some are state-funded, federally funded and sometimes the mix of the 2. But those are definitely areas that I think people would lean on if necessary. I also do think, as we think about the Medicaid requirements that are coming through and that we're aware of, a lot of those changes are going to play out over time. Different states will do it a little differently, like they did the redeterminations that Dan was referring to earlier, not every state when day 1. They had over a year to kind of pull that through. And even what we saw with redetermination is people need their meds. And so they will find another access way. A lot of them went to HICS plans, for example in that last period. I don't necessarily think that's the case, but if you -- for this new Medicaid bill. But I think you're going to see there's as a funnel. I think you can see our mid-20% of Medicaid, and it's coming down a little bit because of the most recent redetermination, what you're going to see is people that are dual eligible will go to Medicare. People that can actually get exceptions because of their HIV diagnosis, we'll get exceptions through Medicaid, most probably in many states. Different states might rule that a little differently as well. And I do think for those who truly fall out of Medicaid, then I think that's where the ADAP programs that I was referring to earlier or even patient access programs that we hold will support those patients.

Okay. Great. Maybe just want to move to the PrEP side. I think the thing that struck me most from your second quarter results was the Descovy growth, 35% year-over-year. I know you and the team have been working hard to kind of continue to expand that market ahead of the Yeztugo launch. So maybe you could just talk about how you're going to capitalize on that momentum. What are some of the things you've been doing? Because, again, that really jumped out to me. And I know you and I have talked about this before, Johanna, but in terms of like your longer-term guidance of 1 million people on PrEP, it looks like if you continue at this growth rate, you're going to exceed that or reach that much sooner than maybe we're all thinking. And so maybe just talk through some of those drivers here on the prevention side.

Absolutely. And listen, it wasn't by chance, right? It was definitely the strategy. The strategy was to really set up the market as we go into the Yeztugo launch. And so late Q4 into Q1, we really did an additional push into the market. The market doesn't grow by chance. It grows because of awareness, education, both at the consumer level and at the physician level and expanding that breadth of physicians that can describe for prevention. And so you saw a nice jump. Two things happened, and I'm going to go back to Q1 before I get to Q2. In Q1, what you saw is the FAQs that Dan was referring to around the USPSTF guidance, naming those specific products, we had very strong access for Descovy last year. That access jumped about 10 points because of those guiding FAQs. And you have plans that we still had a step at it where you had to go on a generic TDF before you can get on Descovy, for example. A lot of those step edits got pulled. So today, we jumped about 10 points on Descovy from a total coverage access, and we jumped about 20 points for people who had $0 co-pays. That's a big jump. Now that could happen and nothing changes. But what our teams did were very targeted in understanding which plans changed and where those plans were with which physician clinics to make sure that we target those to make sure they were aware of that access for Descovy. And so what you saw in Q1 and then continued in Q2 is twofold. One is that market expansion that you were referring to, continuing to grow really quite nicely double digits to about 500,000 consumers are so on PrEP with an opportunity to continue that growth. And with the awareness, it does help PURPOSE 1 and PURPOSE 2 with Yeztugo, right? It created a lot of positive noise in the system as well. So it just kind of helped. And we got some pricing favorability as well through the co-pays and whatnot and the better access. So all -- and pull through that demand. So all of those pieces led to a really nice market dynamic as you go in with Yeztugo. So it just propels that launch. I think as we continue the launch of Yeztugo, and we can talk more about Yeztugo specifically, but our goal is coverage. The best way to get a broad population to have access to Yeztugo is to make sure you have strong coverage. And that's why we've been very clear in our goal of hitting about 75% access or so by 6 months' time point and then about 90% or so at 12 months, and we're well on a way to meet those goals.

Great. Maybe just on the coverage side. I know there were some headlines about 1 PBM maybe not covering Yeztugo to go yet. Just level set us in terms of as you work through these formulary discussions. I mean, is that pretty normal course? I mean where are you in that process? And then I know you guys got the J-code back on -- or it's going to go effective October 1. So what are the implications of that as we think about like incremental volume?

Absolutely. All those pieces are important. So a couple of things. Number one, we are talking to over 200 payers already. They all go through a process. I'm sure many of you were very well over the process where it doesn't happen overnight. They have to go through the medical review, they have then their formulary reviews to see will they get on formulary or not, these drugs. And obviously, these are discussions back and forth between the 2 parties. Most plans take at least 6 to 12 months to get on their formulary. So -- and there are certain time lines like January 1 is a big one. That's why your 75% kind of matches up what we've set our goals are for January 1, for example. And so that's of course of the business, and that's what we're going through right now. I will say, and I shared at the earnings call as well, we had some early commercial wins that we were pleased with, pleasantly surprised. We also had a couple of big state Medicaid plans come on board in July and then in August with California and Florida to the top 3 or 4 PrEP plans. And then we're working through all the rest, right, and they're kind of coming in as we go. I think the J-code is another one. So J-codes generally take about 2 to 3 quarters before we were expecting it sometime in January. We got an earlier J-code with October 1, so that's around the corner. I can tell you there's a lot of hype about that, and there needs to be because you have a lot of folks that are a little reticent to start prescribing. You had the early adopters that started day 1 and then obviously are going through medical exception processes and working through that, and we're helping the specialty pharmacies work through them with our field reimbursement team. We have a very strong infrastructure there to support that. The J-code is important for folks that are a little bit more reticent and maybe got burnt in the past or whatnot. And so to have a miscellaneous J-code for many is not enough. And so October 1 is something that we are absolutely making sure that awareness is clear that on October 1, they will have the J-code. So that people that were waiting for that will absolutely start being able to put pen to paper. And so we're excited about those opportunities. But of course, working through the coverage takes a little bit of time, and that's what we're doing. But so far, really pleased with the results.

Great. One other piece you guys are talking about is logistics versus aptitudes. Obviously, it's once every 6 months versus every other month. You have a buy-and-bill dynamic, as you're just alluding to here. So are you seeing anything on logistics? Or is it pretty much in line with your expectations in terms of practices that are obviously, having to schedule these appointments, but order, get the product, do buy and bill or the, again, white bagging process. Anything on logistics that you're seeing?

Yes. I would stay in line with expectations or what we shared at HIV Analyst Day in December. We're not at steady state clearly by far. But we are tracking it really closely. We are obviously seeing more specialty pharmacy play out than buy and bill. That's normal and what we expected. I would also say that not everybody comes in day 1, right? So if you think about it, if it takes a few weeks to a few months to get a medical exception through, that's going to take a little bit of time. And they're going to kind of not make a special appointment. They're going to come in, in their regular scheduled time and kind of go through that. The one thing that gives us an opportunity, I think, at Gilead is the light of the fact that we have such a strong share in Descovy. And so somebody is coming in and asking for Yeztugo. The messaging that we've been sharing with our physicians is if they're asking for PrEP, give them PrEP, right? And so make sure they get on Descovy as a daily oral right away that day and then make the process start on Yeztugo and bridge them with Descovy. And because we have Descovy and Yeztugo, that gives us an opportunity like no other to really set up. And so what you're seeing is a lot of that bridging is happening with Descovy to set up for Yeztugo.

Okay. Got it. That makes sense. The prescription data, I know you guys have talked high level about that. We have a few more weeks in hand now. How should we think about that? Is there -- is that pretty on par with what end-user demand is? Or is it still directionally aligned? Just any color commentary on that.

I think the wording directionally aligned is more appropriate. And the reason for that, it really depends on what you're looking at from IQVIA, what data sources are you bridging with more than one. We obviously also have data that IQVIA doesn't have, right? So specialty pharmacy is obviously what they're tracking. They don't have the buy-and-bill data. And so -- and that's a much smaller piece of the puzzle, but that's definitely something that we're tracking. And I would say to you that the scripts are one thing, and of course, everybody is tracking it, including me, for sure. But the most important piece of the puzzle for me is the intakes. So for me, when a physician put pen to paper for a script on Yeztugo and then it goes into the specialty pharmacy, that's what we need to be tracking because that funnel is the most important piece of the puzzle. So the more intake, so the growth that you're seeing week-on-week in scripts, we need to see an exponential growth on intake, and that's what we're tracking very closely and thus far, it's tracking to our expectations.

Can you tell us what that number is?

Nope. Nice try.

Okay. Is that a metric -- I mean should we just continue to focus on revenue? Or are there other metrics you guys are going to be updating us on the fourth quarter?

Yes, I think revenue is a tough one in Q3 just because what we said in Q3 was you're going to do an inventory build and then you're going to play it out and you're going to pull it through. So we'll see. I think the best is to follow the growth of the scripts week on week.

Okay. Okay. Great. Maybe one is just you mentioned this, Dan, the once-weekly lenacapavir program. Maybe just level set us in terms of -- I know you made some progress here in terms of next steps, but where we are? And then what's -- other than the dosing frequency, are there any other differentiated features of that program, but that could be another, I think, catalyst for the outlook of the prevention market?

Yes. Absolutely. I think this gets into what I was talking about with these 8 potential launches between now and 2033. Five of those could be between now and 2030. There's -- well, not technically a long-acting, there's a BIC/LEN trial that's going to be read out in the second half of this year that certainly, Johanna could provide a little more information on. And then the first, if you like, within treatment, long-acting that could materialize is the len/islatravir program that will read out sometime in 2026. Look, I think in treatment, you have the opportunity to both differentiate in terms of daily oral prevention, but also many people are looking for less frequent dosing. And the once weekly will be the lead. That's in virologically suppressed patients. And we have another once-weekly that uses an integrase inhibitor from Gilead that will be after that, that has some potential to play in both naive and switch depending on how that progresses. So that's kind of the very near term. But again, over the next several years, you're going to see data on more once weekly, like I just said, the potential for a once-monthly oral and then once every 3 and months every 6 months injectables on the treatment side. I think the most advanced injectable on the treatment side is the once every 6 -- month infused bNAn/lenacapavir combo, which would be going into late-stage trials now. And I think that presents an option for some individuals that are not interested in taking a daily pill and are willing to have an infusion every 6 months. But the point is there is no one size fits all. What we've discovered is that person-centered innovation is really important when it comes to HIV and different groups of people want different things. The ability to, I think, meet those people where they are between now and 2033 is really what we're focused on in terms of diversifying that HIV treatment market.

I would just add, Dan touched a lot on the treatment options that are around the corner. But the 1 PrEP-365, which is our Phase III program in prevention, Obviously, the here and now is Yeztugo, but the opportunity to go to every 12 months is also an incredible opportunity. And the way we are looking at that opportunity is from a market expansion standpoint. As you think of a lot of folks that don't have stable housing are from a social standpoint, not thinking through that can come through even every 6 months, once a year could be really beneficial for some of these people to really broaden the market for prevention as a whole. So it's an add-on to. And that one could be in market as early as 2028. So that's also something that we're focusing for the future from a development standpoint in PrEP.

And is it -- it's an intramuscular, right, not a...

Yes. So it's an IM for the 12-month injection versus the subcu.

And is that -- so should we think of it won't have any nodules associated with it because I know that's something else that people have been focused on from?

Yes, some more than others. I think that the nodules and are really something that is proof that you're giving the injection for many, right? And I want to be clear, if you have a low BMI, then yes, it might be palpable from a nodule standpoint. And it doesn't happen with everybody, it's about 1/3 of the consumers. But for many, they might feel it, but they won't see it be or not at all. And it's really about a drug depot kind of coming into your bloodstream over time, right? So it will dissipate over time. In the IM early trials thus far for the 365, we haven't seen any nodules. Obviously, we need to go into Phase III to see more data. But being an IM injectable might be a little bit different there, too. But we don't believe today, and we're tracking the social media around it as well, the nodules are nonissue.

Okay. Great. Maybe just in the last couple of minutes. I wanted to pivot to the CAR T franchise. Again, another area where, again, I think you guys have built out a pretty interesting moat here, a lot of expertise on the manufacturing side, with not only Yescarta, but now anito-cel, which is in pivotal development. I think one of the questions a lot of people continue to have is just making a broader push into the community setting with these CAR T therapies. So where are we on that process? I know you guys have spent a lot of time here. And what can you learn from Yescarta you can leverage for anito-cel, assuming that you do launch that product next year for myeloma?

Absolutely. Look, I think there are 2 ways to kind of characterize the response to that question. One is just getting the medical practice comfortable and the systems and the reimbursement systems in the United States comfortable with CAR T cell therapy in the community setting. We're making progress there. As with any innovation, it takes a little while to make some progress there. But things like the FDA adjusting the REMS program for a cell therapy will assist with that. Getting the individuals comfortable with that, getting reimbursement systems and payers comfortable with that. So progress is being made there. And it's really important that we continue to make progress to get to more patients with cell therapy. Today, only around 2 out of 10 patients in lymphoma setting are offered a potentially curative therapy. So that's on the environment perspective that will continue to grow. The second thing is the product itself and how amenable it is to community setting. In particular, the way it's structured, the immediate kind of post injection period of time to monitor. And here, I think both the anito-cel product differentiates itself from even our Yescarta project, product and also our next-generation lymphoma products, our bicistronic also differentiate it. So it makes them more amenable to prescribers being comfortable in giving them in the outpatient community setting. It's particularly important, of course, for today's business on Yescarta, which is why we're focused on it. But it's even more important as we think about multiple myeloma launch. It's 80% of that treatment is done in the community setting. And so having a profile of potential best-in-class product like anito-cel coming to market as early as next year in later-line settings and earlier lines of setting, getting both those things right, getting the profile of product right, which we believe we have anito-cel. But the work we're doing today on all the ecosystem around the community is going to be really important for the multiple myeloma launch.

All right. Well, I think we're up against time. But thank you both so much. Really appreciate it. Great to see you.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you.