Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited ($TEVA)

Okay. Great. Great. Well, good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us. My name is Matt Dellatorre, and I'm a biopharma analyst here at Goldman Sachs. And we're really excited to kick off the conference this morning with Teva Pharmaceutical, where I'm joined by Richard Francis, the company's CEO. Richard, thank you for being here.

My pleasure, Matt. Good to be here.

Maybe just to kind of kick us off, give us an overview of where Teva stands today, including your core franchises, both branded and generic, your key pipeline priorities and just how you're thinking about the outlook and strategy for the company over the coming years.

Yes. Well, thanks for that question. So the outlook and the strategy for the next coming years is more of the same. So we sort of go back to the foundations of Pivot to Growth, the 4 pillars: deliver on our growth engine, setup innovation, create generics powerhouse and focus the business, which is all about capital allocation. And we've been executing that religiously for 3.5 years, and I think you've seen the results of that. But specifically, I think the way for people to think about it is, when you talk about the branded business, if you think about delivering our growth engines, we have, I think, put a [ stat out ] on a clear path to more than $3 billion of peak sales, which I think was something which took a bit of time for people to realize it was possible, and now people see that. And we had good growth last year, good growth this year, good growth in Q1, and we're on track for our full year guidance. And then UZEDY, continue to grow that extremely well, both on TRx and on revenue. And AJOVY, the one that everybody forgot about, we've now said it's going to be $1 billion product. So I think we have those. Soon to be joined by olanzapine, our long-acting poop schizophrenia, which is based on the same [indiscernible] technology, UZEDY. So excited to bring that to the market in Q4. So if you think about those first 3, those first 3 products, AJOVY, UZEDY and AUSTEDO, they've been growing our innovative business over 30% last year, soon to be joined by olanzapine. And then next year, we're going to be launching [indiscernible], our product for Tourette's, that we did business development and the acquisition of Emalex. So those 2 are another growth drivers. And then obviously, in 2028, we have DARI dual action rescue inhaler as well as potentially [indiscernible] for MSA. So from a branded point of view, you can see just fundamental good foundations for growth. And then we'll talk about the pipeline later, what could be added to that. But if you just think about those, that's good. And then step-up innovation, the pillar 2. I think we've really reenergized the pipeline, and we'll probably talk about [indiscernible] and IL-15 and some for MSA and the multiple indications we have in duvakitug in our target as well as pain IL-15. So we're really excited that we continue this growth beyond [ 30 ] into [ 40 ]. That's the sort of the branded innovative business, which people did realize that we had 3.5 years ago, and now everybody has seen the potential of it. And then on our generics business, we turn that around from a somewhat declining business to a growing business, and we've significantly increased the amount of biosimilars we have. We now, I think, have tenant market. We're the second largest -- third largest portfolio in the world, and I think we'll soon be the second. So we have a clear path to creating a generics business, which has a significant amount of biosimilar portfolio within that. And so I think -- and the final thing is, which you didn't really ask about, just giving you a bit of a monologue here, so I apologize, Matt, is focus the business. And so capital allocation to drive that as being really a core capability that we've built, where -- whether it's the acquisition of Emalex, whether it's some of the partnerships we've done with Blackstone or [indiscernible] to accelerate our pipeline or whether it's making sure we grow our in-brand products with the right sort of marketing, I think we've shown we can do that in a very disciplined way. And then obviously, we did announce in Q1 that we're going to have the potential to do buybacks the future because as and when we see a good return on capital because we think that's a good thing for shareholders.

Great. Great. Yes, I want to dive in on capital allocation in a moment. Maybe before we do that, though, the stock has doubled since we were here last year. You speak with investors regularly. In your view, what do you feel is the most underappreciated part of the business still, if any?

Well, yes. There's no if, any, I think. Look, I'm pretty measured. So I'm sure this -- don't discount is too much, but I think it's all undervalued. But let me break it down because actually there's like I feel like a trite answer, it doesn't mean to be. So if you think about our generics business, let's start with that. So we've taken that to stable over the last -- grown over the last 3 years, and we've changed the portfolio, and we're bringing biosimilars into the U.S., bringing biosimilars into Europe. But not only bringing in, we're actually becoming a market leader in biosimilars we bring. And I'd just remind everybody that [indiscernible] will, I think, soon be #1 biosimilar in the U.S. We launched that 2 years late, and I think we were 11th to the market. That just shows timing is good. I always want to be first, but it's how you manage a very complex market and what capabilities do you have, what scale do you have. So I think our generics business, because the the surge of biosimilar portfolio coming through, I think it's probably underestimated as an opportunity for not just stability but value creation in the future. But then the more obvious one is, I think as people have caught up with the innovative story at Teva, they -- it's sort of moving so fast. They can't quite catch up. So the AUSTEDO, we have the IRA overhang, that got taken away, and then people have to sort of ground themself $3 billion, which we told them about before, and okay, $3 billion -- greater than $3 billion. And then I think if I just talk about AUSTEDO, UZEDY, olanzapine AJOVY and ecopipam, those products, because in our hands, demand that they can grow, I don't think they're valued with that growth trajectory on them by anybody out there, maybe by you but by many people out there. Because I think what we've shown in [indiscernible], we can execute regardless of if the product profile, where it's a competitive area like migraine or schizophrenia. So I think that point really still has some valuation. But probably the sole biggest is, I don't think there's any value in our pipeline or not enough. I think if you look at DARI, which has a super high probability of success, but we'll know at the end of this year. And look at IL-15 and you look at Duviqitug and you look at the [indiscernible]. I mean we have 7 readouts this year. So I think this will be the year that people start to go, to be more about this pipeline. And we're already hearing a lot of people wanted to talk about IL-15, Duviqitug new indications because I think people are starting to realize we're very good at picking the products to move into the clinic and we have very good engineering antibodies. And so because of that, I think people now need to know a bit more about it. But those, I think, are drastically undervalued. So I think those are the elements of it. And look, I'm comfortable with that. I used to be quite uncomfortable with being undervalued. But as you say, we doubled from here from last year, and we'll see where we end up next year. But our stepping stones and the execution we know we need to do to continue to create growth, top and bottom line EPS and create shareholder value is very clear in our minds. And we know what we need to do. And even if you risk adjust some of that, I think we still end up in a very, very good place.

Great. Great. Maybe going back to capital allocation. You highlighted this a moment ago. This is a major theme for you all in the first half. You had the announcement of the Emalex acquisition. You all did to funding deals with Royalty Pharma and Blackstone for your kind of innovative products. A month ago, you announced investment-grade credit rating, the first of, I guess, 3 more -- especially 2 more coming up. And then also the potential authorization of a share repurchase program with earnings. . So clearly, you guys are taking a diversified approach to capital allocation, and you've been making a lot of progress. So maybe, I guess, the question here is just walk us through maybe the underlying strategy that kind of ties that all together? And then how should we think about the next few years in terms of that strategy? Does it evolve? I think you mentioned a moment ago, more of the same. But I guess, how should we just think about how that kind of stuff is going to look over the coming years?

Yes. So I think -- I'm really proud of our approach to capital allocation. So we talk about capital allocation at all the time. We don't talk about resources. We don't talk about budget. We talk about capital, and that capital has to work for us. And that was really important because when we started this journey 3.5 years ago, we couldn't increase our OpEx. So we have to reallocate capital, and we reallocated it based on, it could give us a return. And where we took it from was not going to give return and maybe that gave us a negative. So we have to balance that out. So we became very clear about if we do something, we do it meaningfully. And any things interpret at have capital, they have to earn right to have capital. So that's everything. So that's a different mindset than I've ever as any other company, and that's on purpose. So when I think about the things you said, if you just think about those. So we have not really increased our percentage of revenue or OpEx since I've been here. We've transformed our pipeline, the funding of our pipeline. We've transformed the funding of our innovative products, and yet we haven't changed that. That's capital allocation. Because we have to take it in one place, we have to put it in another. And we do that, and we do it in pretty big numbers. I mean, it's not a little bit here, a little there. We move big amounts of capital. We did that while we religiously played down debt. So we are playing down debt. And people forget that now we're investment grade, which is for one of the rating agencies, nearly 2 years ahead of when we said we're going to do that. right? And these are pretty hard markets, these rating agencies. And I think in the next quarter or 2, we'll get the other 2. So that shows when they look under the hood and they really evaluate the vital size of the patient they're saying, this is on a good trajectory. So I think we've done that. And then we've made the decisions around partnerships and to get partnerships by the way, which I think are in good terms. So the partnerships we have with [indiscernible], the partnership with Blackstone. I think they're really good terms for us. I have a good terms of Blackstone, but nobody got [indiscernible] good deal from Teva. It was a fair deal. And that's because the quality of our assets, the quality of our strength of our positioning and our finance at that point. So I think that's one. Then the Amanda Biosciences deal we did. I'd just remind people, we said we're going to do a deal like that between $500 million and $1 billion de-risked asset that had its phase results that we could put into our machine and we could make it a great success, but we don't want to put capital at risk with the turnover of Phase III results. We did what we said we're going to do. And I think that's a really good pretty return on capital. So we have done a lot. Going forward, I anticipate a bit more same, and we're honestly looking at our long-range plan, how we allocate capital. But we do want to make sure we're building our pipeline. We've got a lot of indications of Duviqitug to go into 15, to fully push those through. But you also see some potential deals like Emalex coming through again. They've got to be right. They're going to be the right risk profile for us. But we know that our balance sheet is improving quite dramatically over the next few years, and our cash flow is going to improve dramatically. So we're planning for what that means, which is also why we talked about potential buybacks. But we've got to think about this capital is coming. Let's not having when it arrives at what do we do with it? We're planning for what money we're going to have and how we're going to allocate that now, which means we can do in a more controlled fashion. But hopefully, people will see we're so disciplined in the past. As we go forward, it will be more of the same, but in a really disciplined way. We have to get a return on the capital we deploy. And we always think for long-term value creation, but I think we're very mindful of the fact that long term is becoming shorter now. And the [indiscernible] keep proving us to be a rising star. We want to keep showing that we can give a good return on capital.

Okay. Great. So I think you kind of answered this, but and we'll talk about the Emalex deal a little bit more in detail. But how are you thinking about kind of the cadence type and eyes of maybe further BD going forward? And are you guys seeing a lot of kind of opportunity like Emalex maybe went a little bit under the radar, but then when you announced it, it's people like, "Okay, this is highly strategic for you guys, it's that kind of mold that you highlighted? " Is there a lot more opportunities there like that?

There are, but super -- so I mean, look, I mean I always joke you got to kiss a lot of frogs in fine print. And we say, I was kissing a lot of frogs, and so although it was well received, we have been looking at many companies in the last 3 years. And like I say, we've been in situations where we haven't been able to get to a price because once again, go back to our disciplined capital allocation, we won't pay something that we don't think is going to be a good return on the capital the shareholders' capital. So there are a lot out there, but we follow -- as a team, we work incredibly well. So as myself, Eric, he's Head of R&D. [indiscernible] there to BD, obviously, a clue CFO. And then depending on where it is, it could be one of the regional heads often, Chris Fox, who's based in the U.S. So we're very tight. We take BD at the executive level. We don't -- that's not delegated. We do it because we see the importance of it for driving value. But yes, I think there's more out there, but it's going to be the right price. There's so many times that I have boards who think their assets worth more than is that their company is worth more. And actually, just of the things we have looked at, that I have a different value, none of them have transacted. Maybe I was more right than they were, but I think it's a tough world we live in and to get a return on capital. commercializing products in the U.S. and Europe is really hard. And I think biotech companies need to really think about can they really compete in this very challenging commercial environment, very challenging payer environment. And what return can they give their investors on their capital and how quickly can they do? And I think I try to help them understand that, and it's not too easy. We keep looking. We're constantly talking about it. And hopefully, we'll be able to do some more. But one, we got to be mindful of how much we can take in, because commercially, we're launching products every year. And often these are synergistics, that's good like ecopipam will be. But at the same time, you can't necessarily plan it, some deals come along, you get two together and sometimes you go to a period where you just can't find the right one.

Great. Maybe switching to the pipeline. You guys are entering a busy catalyst period starting kind of midyear, and we're going to see, I guess, the IL-15 data probably in the coming weeks in vitiligo. And so I think there's a lot of excitement around on the pipeline. Maybe kind of just working through that pipeline chronologically in terms of the next launches. The next one is long-acting olanzapine, where there's a lot of excitement in terms of pent-up demand in that market for a long-acting option for that molecule. Youall have a 4Q PDUFA I guess what are you guys most focused on from a commercial readiness perspective, given you have UZEDY already on the market? And then kind of given your latest interactions with the FDA, how are you guys feeling on the regulatory side in terms of the label being clean and potential AdCom or something like that?

So I mean on the -- I'll do in reverse because it's quicker. So from the FDA, we're still in a part of the process where there's not a huge amount of communication. I think the we had has gone well. I wouldn't necessarily read anything into that because it's sort of more of the administrative tie. I think now we're entering the period where it gets a bit more interactive. But we feel really confident about the data set, the quality of the data. I mean, over 4,000 patients have now been injected and there is no PDSS. So I think we feel very comfortable. They have a really important product for a very needy patient population. But there's probably more to come on that, Matt, as we now into a period where there will be more discussions. From a readiness, this is one of those where we've spent a huge amount of time and effort on it. I mean we have UZEDY, which is in the market. We're talking to the same physicians. We're talking to them the same nurse practitioners, the same formulary committees in hospitals, the same payers, it's Medicaid and Medicare predominantly. So we're in these every single day, and we built a huge amount of credibility. So we've done really well with UZEDY because we're very credible when we go to all of these different stakeholders. And I think we've become known as -- I think we're now considered to be one of the top 3 psychiatric companies in the world, right, from only a few years ago. I tell you that because as we launch olanzapine, that's very different when we launched UZEDY. So now we're launching olanzapine with all of those relationships, all of that understanding. And we clearly know there is a lot of enthusiasm around olanzapine. Don't forget there are a lot of Phase III sites in the United States as well. So people have practical use. But that capability we have in that team, I think, is exciting. We are working hard to make sure from day 1, we create access to olanzapine. I think the one thing I'd say is, and I've made sure people understand this, there's not going to be any meaningful revenue this year because there'll be a bit of stocking. But -- and even next year, I think H1, I wouldn't anticipate too much because first, we need to get into the Medicaid. So we go on all the Medicaid. Some will adopt it straight away and some have time lags, and so we need to get through that. And then on Medicare, we think that's going to be -- as it was with UZEDY, it still is a long negotiation. So the reason why I tell people about that is that doesn't mean I don't think we'll get a lot of prescriptions. I think we'll get a lot of prescriptions. We get a lot of sampling. I think people will use this a lot. But to the point where it becomes a real revenue driver will be a bit later because we won't agree to deals that are not in line with the value and the premium we place on this product, which I think is important for long-term value creation. We did that study. We show we have discipline. But I'm really excited about olanzapine for a couple of things. One, there's obviously -- it's going to help us create a $1.5 billion to $2 billion franchise. But also when you speak to psychiatrists and when you speak to nurse practitioners, there is a patient population so in need of a long-acting -- don't forget, these patients when they have an episode, their brain is slightly damaged and the ability for that molecule to work as effectively as it did before goes down. So every episode you need to stop because the long-term ability to have an efficacious treatment would decline otherwise. So there's a real, real need here. And I feel that -- I feel very privileged to be in a position that we launch something where physicians know the molecule, they think it's the most efficacious. They want to use it. They just don't have a long-acting. So I'm really excited about that launch and the potential that can to create this $1.5 billion to $2 billion franchise.

Great. So maybe think about it kind of taking off mid-'27 second half of '27.

And I think we've got credibility. We show -- we saw what we did with UZEDY. We did not do any deals with Medicare. we didn't think they value the product. And maybe they will this time, okay, this one will come to the table. I think they'll take time. So I think that just means we have to grind through it. But we do know physicians will go through a prior auth. They will demand the product because they demanded UZEDY and olanzapine has a far bigger unmet medical need there. So -- but that's the right way to think about it, yes.

Okay. Great. I guess simultaneously, you'll be launching ecopipam from the Emalex deal in Tourette's syndrome. It seems like base case assumptions are probably like a mid-'27 launch or perhaps late '27 launch. You all have highlighted clearly synergies with your existing neuro franchise. You'll add a pediatric sales force, though. Maybe -- I guess, maybe kind of walk us through the broader how we should think about synergies with your existing commercial infrastructure? And then how should we think about the indication expansion strategy? I think there was potential that it could be used in stuttering, but just kind of high-level thoughts on the longer term.

Yes. So I mean, that's another one I'm really excited about. I mean the unmet medical need in Tourette's is huge. I mean there's 100,000 pediatric children who have Tourette's, 50,000 are on therapy, so half aren't. The ones on therapy don't stand at long because you tend to end up an antipsychotic, which I think we're both parent. If child has Tourette's, you don't necessarily want to put them on antipsychotic to deal with Tourette's. So there's a real they may start on their and stay on it. So they drop off very quickly. So we think there's a real unmet need here for a safe and efficacious product. So I feel -- it's another one, I feel super excited about the fact that I can, as a father, bring something to what is a very destabilizing condition for people in their formative years with a real unmet medical need. So I think -- and if you think about it, 100,000, 50,000 on therapy, not very good at staying on therapy. That feels a bit like AUSTEDO. It feels like the muscle we built with AUSTEDO, underpenetrated, how do you create awareness, how do we make sure patients start and stay on the right therapy. That's something which we've built that muscle up really well in AUSTEDO, which I'd say is hard, probably harder because they have schizophrenia, they also have AUSTEDO. They also have tardive dyskinesia. So -- but we've got that capability. So I feel we can make a really big impact on this. We are doing -- there's a lot of synergies, but we also do want to have a good launch. So as you said, we're having a pediatric team put together. And then for the other indications, just to let everybody know, from a deal perspective, the deal was done on Tourette's. So anything that comes through that's starting others, that will be an upside. But I didn't model that into the case from a capital allocation and return on capital. But we'll definitely look at that. And we'll also look at life cycle management. Is there a way we can even for Tourette's, improve the product offering for the children.

Great. Maybe switching to or asthma, which kind of flies a little under the radar. This could be another, I guess, potential launch next year as well, late '27, early '28. Probably early '28. Early seems highly from a clinical perspective, and you all have highlighted a differentiated device and broader label than the current competitor product from AstraZeneca. So it creates kind of an attractive commercial setup. I guess, assuming we see positive Phase III data in early '27, walk us through, I guess, the key points of execution from a commercial perspective and how confident you are in achieving that potential, I think, $1 billion in peak sales you all have highlighted?

Yes. So we should have -- we have the potential to have some data this year. The Phase III will finish. Obviously we could have some data this year. I think it's a question of it's an exacerbation study. So if that's all done, but it will be finished this year, whether we have, I'd like to think that we could announce something, but we'll see. Then I think we're thinking about dead altogether. I think I sort of conceded to the fact that it's probably '28 that we launch this. But we'll see. But in a way, it's interesting when you're launching olanzapine this year, you could pay next year. [Indiscernible] the year after might not be a bad little cadence. And we could have for MSA in '28 as well. So it'd be not do like this. If they come along, we'll launch them, but that spread might not be too bad. But going back to your question of, look, this is a super -- it's another one that's really unmet medical need. I think over 5,000 people in the U.S. die every year because they don't have a dual action rescue inhaler. So this is really serious. I think Astra are out there forging the market, creating the market. And I think it takes a lot to change the market to change prescribing behaviors. So I think I'm glad we're following them. They can put the muscle and they're a good respiratory company. They have a legacy there. But I do think the fact that 25% of patients are pediatric patients, we will have the pediatric indication, and we have a very simple device. So for me, the way I get to -- and I think I've said up to 10 million patients in the U.S. I mean there's nowhere near that now. So as that starts to come through, the pediatrics will come on us. And if we get 25% of that market, I think you're between $500 million and $1 billion. And then we'll probably start to encroach into the non-pediatric because we just have a very simple device. And I think in asthma, the simplicity of the device in many indications has been shown to be very important. So -- but I think DARI to me is one of those that will just, I think, it won't be a spiked launch. I think we'll have some excitement around olanzapine and ecopipam and potentially and duvakitug . I think DARI will be slow and steady, but will gone for a long, long, long time and be one of those, maybe a bit similar to AJOVY that just keeps on giving and become sort of your hard-working portfolio opportunity. But that's why to think about it. We're going to have to put a bit of resource behind that because it's not synergistic with any of our neurology or immunology. You could argue there's a tiny bit of pediatric overlap with ecopipam. I don't think so. I'm not -- I don't try to be too precise on synergy there. I want to make sure we get the right launch. But that's also where I think we look at building around the DARI to make sure we have the right sales and marketing share of voice there, but being thoughtful about how much money we put behind it, knowing that it's one that's going to take time.

Great. Maybe switching to TL1A, kind of your crown jewel in some sense of the pipeline. The data to date, both induction and maintenance in IBD suggests a potentially best-in-class profile, particularly in Crohn's disease. And so I realize this is a highly competitive space, and you all are making limited disclosures ahead of potential developments. But you did recently announce the $400 million Blackstone funding deal, and you're expected to disclose additional Phase II proof-of-concept studies indications later this year. Maybe without spilling all the details. Give us a sense of maybe what's happening kind of behind the scenes and how we should think about the pace and the breadth of this development over the next, say, 2 to 3 years?

Yes. So let me start. It's an important question because -- so firstly, ourselves and our partner, Sanofi, feel that duvakitug has massive potential. So let me be really clear on that. That doesn't mean just in IBD. I think we both think it has significant potential there, but we think across multiple indications. So the good thing is we're very aligned on the fact that we think this is a pipeline and a product, and we want to go after it like that. We will be announcing 2 new indications this year and starting them this year. That is the -- but then we'll have more indications to come. And that just goes to show that we believe, like some other companies who have a TL1A believe, this is a multiple indication asset. So I think just the ambition we have around this with Sanofi is very much aligned. And I really see us pursuing this in many indications over multiple years. And the good thing about it is it's -- okay, we believe it's very efficacious in IBD. But if you look at its safety and its tolerability, it's excellent. So if any product you're going to move into multiple indications, a product with the profile. And as I speak to Sanofi about it, they have a very similar product in duvakitug, which is efficacious and very safe and that allowed them to go into other indications. So I think we have a partner who understands this. So the ambition is there. We'll probably start to see some news flow on that. But let's not have any question about the ambition of it. And I'd just remind you, in IBD, I think the market when we launch is now predicted to be between $35 billion and $40 billion, right? And that market is super unsatisfied. You can talk about efficacy, but I think we'll come out, and I think we'll still have either a leading efficacy in both Crohn's and UC, but we'll definitely have the best safety profile and tolerability. We won't have monitoring and won't have black box because I mean I think there's already been 70, thousands of patients treated with the TL1A. So I think people are probably discounting where TL1A fits in the treatment path. I think it will be a lot higher up a lot quicker than people think just because it's efficacious and it's safe. And why would you not do something that doesn't require monitoring and it doesn't have concerns about a black box. So I just remind people in IBD, I think about the size of the market when we launch in '29 and think about a profile like that.

Great. There's going to be a number of readouts this year from competitors. Maybe most notably, Merck will have Phase III data in UC. And they're also supposed to share Phase II proof-of-concept data in [Indiscernible], which could kind of give the field insights in terms of, I guess, the impact on fibrosis and maybe open up another category for the class. I guess how important are competitor readouts to your guys' development program and strategy? And is there anything that you guys view as particularly important for your program?

Look, I like the fact that they're all doing the work they're doing. I mean, I suppose I think about it, I'm not a scientist, so this will probably make Eric cringe a bit. But I think about our competitors are doing these proof of concepts. I believe categorically, we have the best TL1A. But by design, so it's by design, it's not just emotional. It's by design and the level of potency specificity and neutralizing antibodies, so it's fact. And that's why you saw the difference in induction and maintenance in UC and CD. So because of that, I look forward to the data being turned over because those proof of concepts in a way, are proof of concepts. So as soon as we see those, then just let you know, we have listed out, I don't know, 10 to 15 indications that have the potential scientifically. And whether they all come up, they don't because other things come out, other targets come out and more relevant. So things move around a bit, but there's real scientific rationale. So as these turn over, then I think it will give us a real insight. But maybe then that allows us to think about moving to indications where we know we have the best TL1A. So that TL1A has good data. We know we're the best TL1A. So that gives us an interesting opportunity.

Great. Maybe now switching to IL-15. You all have your proof-of-concept vitiligo data in the coming weeks. And then celiac disease in second half following your $500 million funding deal with Royalty Pharma. Clearly, you and royalty have seen positive results in vitiligo already. But maybe walk us through how differentiated a profile we should expect here relative to some of the current treatments in vitiligo, the oral JAKs, for instance. And I guess, what drives your level of confidence in celiac?

So look, I mean, that -- touching on vitiligo. So I haven't seen any data. So we're going to have it in a few weeks. So we'll see that. But the sort of the product profile that we have, the TPP is there's rationale to think there will be more efficacious. But let's just say we are in the boundaries of efficacy that's out there. We're an injection that's once every 3 months. And we have -- and if we have what we believe we'll have is a very good side effects and safety profile. So we're not a topical that has to be applied twice a day. We're not something which has to be monitored or something may come out with black box. So we're every 3 months, we're safe and tolerable and the same efficacy. Now will the efficacy be better? I don't know. But if you just put it like that, I think for a dermatologist and a patient, it's a bit of a no-brainer. I've sold products that are less differentiated than that, and there's a real opportunity. On the celiac, I think we'll see that data in the second half of the year. I think that will be really interesting to see whether this is an opportunity to sort of modify the disease and not just treat the symptoms. And so I think people are now starting to understand how big the celiac market is and how big the opportunity is. So I think that data will be really important. And I think that could -- it's amazing as we've run that study, the level of interest has increased significantly because people don't understand the severity of celiac in the severe patients and how that destabilizes their life. So I think this is another -- like vitiligo, no one knew about that market, and now they see that as a multibillion-dollar market. I think celiac will be a lot, lot bigger. But we'll have that data in the second half of the year. And I think that will be some really high-quality data with some endpoints that I think will really stimulate the market. But I would add that in between that, we have a futility analysis on for MSA. So no news, but if it keeps going, there's some news there. We have the Phase III readout of DARI towards the end of the year. We have the PD-1 IL-2 readout in oncology, first-in-human data, the dose escalation study at the end of the year as well, and we launched olanzapine. So I think we have -- and then we'll launch 2 more indications in duvakitug. So we have sort of 7 readouts and 2 more announcements. So I think from a reposition -- we've always said we are transforming Teva from a pure-play world-class generics company to a world-class biopharma company. I think that's already happened. When I look at your notes and other people, people are already saying that. But I think this year will be the actual -- the final paragraph that underlines this is a world-class biopharma company and now how do we think about it from a value, how should we value it, how should we value the multiple, what multiple should it be on? And what is it earnings going to be top and bottom line? What is cash flow going to be in 2030? Because those things have changed dramatically with Teva in the next few years. And I'd encourage people to look at that.

Great. Well, with that, Richard, thank you for joining us. It's really exciting, and we look forward to all the updates in the coming months.

Thanks, Matt. We appreciate hosting us. Thank you very much.