Bristol-Myers Squibb Co (NYSE:BMY) Morgan Stanley Global Healthcare Conference September 12, 2022 8:10 AM ET
Company Participants
Christopher Boerner – EVP & Chief Commercialization Officer
Conference Call Participants
Terence Flynn – Morgan Stanley
Terence Flynn
Great. Good morning, everybody. Thanks for joining us today. I’m Terence Flynn, the pharma analyst at Morgan Stanley. Just first on disclosures. For important disclosures, please see the Morgan Stanley research website at www.morganstanley.com/researchdisclosures. If you have any questions, please reach out to your Morgan Stanley sales representative.
This morning, I’m very pleased to be hosting Bristol-Myers. Today from the company, we have Chris Boerner, who is Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer. Thanks for joining us, Chris.
Christopher Boerner
Happy to be here.
Question-and-Answer Session
Q – Terence Flynn
So before I get into the congratulations on deucrava or SOTYKTU, which we are just talking about, first, I wanted to start high level with the question related to the Inflation Reduction Act. So obviously, this was passed into law, will be implemented starting in 2026. Just wondering if you could frame for us the impact, this is obviously in the out-years, but for the company’s business in terms of your mix and how you’re thinking about some of maybe the puts and takes here in terms of access and then maybe the negotiation, recognizing we still have more to learn in terms of the details of how this will be implemented.
Christopher Boerner
Yes. I mean I think that last point you made is really important. So the biggest impact of this legislation is going to be when price setting kicks in 2026. And between now and then, we’re going to learn a lot about how this gets implemented, because while the legislation lays out in broad, what exactly kind of how this will look, so much of the details will matter here in terms of the impact on any company, including MS. So that’s what I would say at a macro level.
Having said that, I think that a couple of things are pretty clear. First of all, the impact of this is going to be industry-wide. And second, with respect to BMS, what’s absolutely clear is that our portfolio is going to look differently in the middle of the decade and certainly, as we get into the latter half of the decade than it looks today. So we’re going to end up spending a lot of time talking more about products like SOTYKTU, like Camzyos and Opdualag, which are going to be very early still in the life cycle of the products.
And so while this legislation will impact products like Opdivo and Eliquis, I think it’s important to keep in mind that for Opdivo, we were anticipating a biogeneric in 2028 anyway. And for Eliquis, we split the economics with Pfizer. So I think those products will be impacted. But for the majority of the portfolio, by the time we get to the middle of the decade, it’s going to be a much younger portfolio and it’s going to be a more diversified portfolio.
So if I sum it up, I think there’s still a lot we need to know about how this gets implemented. I think that our portfolio is going to continue to evolve. And in any case, we’re going to continue to be very disciplined financially, and we’ll adjust as we need to learn more.
Terence Flynn
Yes. I guess one follow-up is just — and again, I know it’s hard to predict how this is going to play out. But are there any changes that you guys can make to minimize the impact? So as you think about mix of commercial versus Medicare or again, I know some experts have talked about launch prices for new drugs. So as you think about trying to kind of navigate that period, are there anything strategically that the company can do to try to minimize the impact?
Christopher Boerner
Well, I mean, I think all things are on the table as we think about how do we minimize the impact of this. And again, as we learn more, we’ll adjust. What I would say is that I would be reluctant to make a lot of sort of broad generalizations as to how we’re going to change. I mean there’s been some discussion of the switch to more biologics versus small molecules. Look, I think our stature on that is let’s continue to follow the science. Let’s continue to invest in areas that we believe we can get a substantial return on investment. Let’s make sure we’re investing in areas where we think we can bring meaningful first- or best-in-class medicines to market.
And on the margin, I’m sure there will be some changes that we’ll be looking at. Certainly, the sequencing of indications is something to think about. Historically, in markets like oncology, you start in very late lines of therapy, you work your way up to and eventually get into early-stage disease where you can actually cure patients. I think we’re going to have to look very long and hard about how we continue to have the impact in early disease given the time in which you have to do that might be compressed. So those kinds of things we’re going to be looking at. But again, we’re going to learn some much more over the next few years. I would be reluctant to make sort of broad prediction.
Terence Flynn
Okay. Maybe one other just broadly before we dig in this on the product-specific side. Just as we think about the recovery here from COVID, obviously, we’re all back in person. This is great. It feels very normal. Again, we’ve seen that across all of our own personal lives. But again, from your seat in terms of what you’re seeing for your end markets: cancer, immunology, maybe U.S., Europe, does it feel as normal as it does right now? Or are there still some lingering effects from COVID out there in terms of the physician office and kind of the recovery on the utilization side?
Christopher Boerner
Well, it’s interesting. When we think about that, we look at data and then we actually go out and I spent the last couple of weeks both in the U.S. and in Europe. And what I can say is that thematically, it’s very similar to what we’ve talked about previously, with the impact of COVID to the extent that it’s continuing, tends to be variable across markets and across therapeutic areas. And so that’s kind of a general statement. I think if you look into the details, I think that you see a difference between disease areas like cardiovascular and immunology relative to hematology and oncology. So in CV and immunology, we have seen an improvement relative to COVID. So in CV, for example, new-to-brand and total volumes are roughly back to where they were pre-COVID. In immunology, we’re actually — I mean, in RA, we’re actually running ahead of where we were pre-COVID. And the same is true in IBD. So I think that market tends to be on a pretty good trajectory in terms of recovery.
In contrast in oncology, I-O solid tumors were still running in terms of new patient volume, about 5% to 10% below where we were pre-COVID, varies by tumor type. In hematology, we’ve seen an improvement in first-line multiple myeloma. However, that’s not translated to the second-line patients who are staying on therapy a little bit longer. So we still see a little bit of a deficit in terms of COVID recovery in second line. And then unfortunately, in MDS, that’s a market that’s still about 25% depressed relative to pre-COVID, and we’re not seeing much in the way of positive signs there. So it’s a little bit of a mixed bag in terms of patient volume.
Similar dynamic in terms of our ability to engage with customers face-to-face. The other thing that we’re paying attention to is that we’ve heard, in fact, I heard over the last couple of weeks from customers that they’re looking at staff shortages, which is something that they’re also creating potentially a bottleneck to the use of product. So we’re going to have to keep an eye on that. But bottom line is generally seeing some positive trends, but it’s still highly variable.
Terence Flynn
On the staff shortages, is that more in kind of the infusion clinics and the IBD, like the gastro side? I mean that’s what I heard on that.
Christopher Boerner
It’s really across the board. I mean what we’re hearing is you get these pockets where you have an increase in COVID cases and you’ve got nursing staff, you’ve got infusion clinics that don’t have the people to actually run that site. And that’s a true bottleneck. You can’t get patients then if you don’t have staff. So that’s something I think all institutions are dealing with, and we’re just going to have to see how that plays out.
Terence Flynn
Okay. Great. Maybe moving on to the product cycles now. Congratulations on the SOTYKTU approval and the label. Again, I know that was a pretty important one for the company. Maybe just give us your perspective on the label you guys received. Kind of the puts and takes, how you’re thinking about now that we have the label, positioning in the marketplace? And then I’ll have a couple more in kind of pricing and access.
Christopher Boerner
Sure. We’re very happy with the label that we got. It’s a clean label. There is no black box. There’s no restriction of use. We feel good about the fact that there’s no meaningful impediment to getting patients on to therapy. So as you look at the label in its totality, this is a clean label. And the nice thing about that clean label is it gives us the ability to tell the story that we want to tell, which is that we’ve got a product with SOTYKTU, that is doing very clear, clinically compelling efficacy against the standard of care today as an oral therapy, and that’s Otezla. We’re showing a very established safety profile and one that frankly compares very favorably to Otezla. We’re showing the value of this product in this label for health care providers and for patients, the latter being evidenced by the improvement we saw in patient-reported outcomes. All of that is highlighted in the label. So we’ve got a great story to tell with this label.
So as I step back and I look at this launch, a few things are pretty clear. First, this market was primed for this launch. We have almost 80% aided awareness for this product, and we haven’t even had sales reps in the market yet. So that’s remarkable.
When you talk to customers who are aware of this product, they say two things. Number one, the profile of this drug fills an unmet need here, which is for an oral product that has improved efficacy and tolerability. And they say that this is a product that is going to meaningfully impact how they . So to have that as the starting point is ideal.
We’ve also hired a various experienced team in the space. We’ve had MSLs in the field since our Phase II data. By the way, that accounts for, in some ways, the fact that almost every KOL felt that this was a differentiated product relative to [indiscernible]. We are now adding a very experienced sales team as of this week. The sales team has over 12 years of experience in dermatology, almost 20 years of sales experience on average. So we feel good about that team. And we’ve expanded our internal capabilities across the board, most notably with respect to home office and field access employees. So we’ve got a good team, a good label.
And now the focus shifts to educating customers in a more meaningful direct way and at scale, and then putting patients on therapy and making sure that we eliminate any issues that might get in the way. New products typically have a new-to-market block, so we’ll have to manage through those kinds of things. But our focus really is now driving demand here.
Terence Flynn
What — and you talked about the sales force side. So maybe just remind us like kind of the typical size of one of the specialty sales forces. And then is there any leverage because you guys do have some existing immunology products, so you able to leverage those folks at all? Or is this a completely new build?
Christopher Boerner
Yes. We’ve hired a dedicated sales team. The sales team is staffed to be competitive with existing sales teams across the competitive landscape. It is a specialized team. So it’s not on the magnitude of what [indiscernible] like an Eliquis. But we’re staffed competitively on the sales side. We’ve got a lot of resources in the field to support market access.
Where we’ve been able to leverage capabilities is on the internal side. We obviously have a very big worldwide commercial organization that allows us to do digital, that allows us to do multichannel access, and clearly on the market access side. We’ve got a very large team and [indiscernible] enhance that team as necessary to support it.
Terence Flynn
Okay. And I guess one other just on the positioning side. I remember when Celgene at the time had launched Otezla, it took some time to kind of gain access, but then also in terms of positioning ahead of biologics. I remember that was a separate process. It took a couple of years, again, required some pretty meaningful discounts on the gross-to-net side.
So is that the right proxy to think about as we think about kind of time to ramp and gross to net? Or is there a different dynamic here given where we are versus that was, I think, a 2015 launch? Can you just speak to kind of access, gross to net and kind of the pacing of all that?
Christopher Boerner
Sure. I think there are 2 things embedded in there. Sort of one is, how is the market laying out in terms of biologics and orals, et cetera. And then sort of the access and uptake. Let’s take those in turn. So I think this is a market post the Otezla world, where on one end of the spectrum, you’ve got topicals. On the other end of the spectrum, you’ve got biologics. And up until today, you’ve had 1 oral product that’s set between those platform. So our focus as a launch is going to be the first choice systemic therapy, which means Otezla. So that’s clearly where we’re targeting our efforts. But that’s how the market lays out today.
With respect to the ramp of this product, I think I would think about that in 2 phases. Phase 1 is all about, as I mentioned earlier, driving demand. The reality is in a market like this one, where you have significant rebate walls that have been established, if you don’t have a broad portfolio within that space, the way you break through that wall is really a twofold approach. One, there will be a small percentage of plans, roughly 10% of plans that have open formulary access, we’ll obviously take advantage of those plans as best we can. But then the vast majority of patients are going to be on plans with restricted formulary. And in order to get broader access, you’re going to have to build significant volume. And the way you do that is put patients on therapy. The vast majority of patients are going to be getting some sort of either free or Bridge Program drug. And that’s going to be the focus for the remainder of this year and into 2023.
Based on that volume, if we’re successful in building volume and building it quickly, we’ll be able to leverage that volume for the negotiations, which will take place roughly this time in 2023 to position ourselves in a better formulary position as we get into 2024. So it’s really a 2-phase approach, build volume this year and next year, leverage that volume as you get into 2024.
Terence Flynn
Yes. Okay. Makes sense. And then again, as we think about that gross-to-net dynamic, should we just look at other immunology products? Or do you think given your superiority versus Otezla, maybe that puts you in a more favorable negotiating position?
Christopher Boerner
I mean I think the gross to nets are going to vary. I think a lot of ultimately, that’s going to determine how this plays out is going to be the volume that you’re able to build. So they’re related concepts though, obviously, because to the extent to which you have a very compelling efficacy profile, which we have, I don’t think you can get a better profile here in terms of 2 head-to-head Phase III studies, large studies against the standard of care today, compelling efficacy and safety benefit. And so I think that enables us to drive that volume. But ultimately, the way you’re going to negotiate with payers is going to be get into the negotiation with a good drug. We’ve got that. And then ultimately, it’s going to come down to the volume.
Terence Flynn
Yes. Okay. I know you guys are exploring a number of other indications here. I think PsA, there’s a Phase III ongoing lupus. You’ve talked about a Phase III later this year, and then I think there’s some IBD Phase II data coming next year. So maybe just anything to add in terms of those data readouts that we should think about?
And then the related question is, you guys have put out a peak sales that are not peak, I guess, 2029 peak sales projection of $4 billion. As you think about the label you received, the upcoming data flow, maybe speak to your confidence in that projection. And any puts or takes relative to that now that you know the label?
Christopher Boerner
Yes. I mean I think the one big area of uncertainty has been taken out with the label, which is that we feel very good about our ability to drive the first market for SOTYKTU, which is psoriasis. That label is giving us the ability to tell the right story there. That’s a big opportunity. The focus right now of my organization is capitalizing on that opportunity.
You referenced the fact that we’ve got a string of data that we’ll be playing out. We’ve obviously seen the Phase II SLE data that were presented back in June. We’ll be initiating that Phase III program later this year. The PsA data, there’s actually quite a bit of buzz around this product in that community. The PsA data should be in, in 2024 and then the IBD programs, we’ll get some of the Phase II data again .
So if you put all of that together, obviously, we need those programs to lay out. That would be obviously the — to play out. That would be the big variable that remains here, but we feel very good about the starting point for this product, which is we’ve got to make it successful in psoriasis. We’ve got the label to do that, we got the team to do that, and so we’re off to a good start .
Terence Flynn
Okay. Great. Maybe we’ll move on to milvexian. Obviously, another important franchise for you guys in terms of Eliquis, but also another upcoming Phase III program here. So coming out of ESC, where we saw the first secondary stroke prevention data, maybe just from where you said, Chris, speak to the profile. And then how you’re thinking about positioning this in the marketplace, especially in a world where Eliquis goes generic. And again, as you think about how to slot in and maybe maintain that franchise from a Bristol perspective, particularly given the size and how important it is to the company?
Christopher Boerner
Yes. I think coming out of ESC, I think it’s important to sort of step back and look at the totality of data. I mean we had a hypothesis with Factor XIa, which is that you could get efficacy at least as good, if not better, than Factor Xa without seeing a corresponding increase. That was the main hypothesis.
Obviously, it’s a Phase II. So what you’re really testing with Phase IIs are, is the drug safe? Are you seeing signs of efficacy though? I think it’s important that in the cardiovascular space, these are relatively small studies. So you have to be careful about drawing too many conclusions there. And then ultimately, can you a select a dose? And I think when we look at the totality of the data that we’ve seen with SSPs and total knee replacement, we think we’ve taken from those 2 studies what we need. As you look at the single-agent total knee replacement study, there we saw improvements in efficacy without corresponding increase in [indiscernible].
That single-agent setting of total knee replacement is the perfect place to test the hypothesis that you would be looking for in AF. That’s what we did. If you may recall, with Eliquis, we did the initial studies in total knee replacement and extrapolated that for AF. So we feel good about that single-agent data there. And then with SSP, you’re doing a study with Factor XIa you couldn’t do with Factor Xa, which is you’re layering on top of standard of care, which is single-agent or dual antiplatelet therapy. And you’re saying, can we see improvements in efficacy without corresponding increase in [indiscernible] And within the range of doses that we would consider taking into Phase III, that’s precisely what we saw.
And given the pathophysiology as well as the fact that the standards of care between SSP and ACS are similar, we feel good that in those 2 programs collectively, we have what we need to take forward to the Phase IIIs. So then as you pull forward and say, “Well, what does that mean in terms of the commercial opportunity?” In AF, obviously, the DOACs have been very successful. We benefited that with Eliquis. But I think it’s important to keep in mind that there are a lot of patients who still don’t either get adequate dosing in that space or they don’t get dose at all.
We estimate it’s about 40%, about 20% who are underdosed and about 20% of patients who don’t get treated at all. So for those 40% of patients, there’s a real opportunity here. Now clearly, generic Eliquis and Xarelto will be in the market eventually. But it’s important to keep in mind, that patient population isn’t being treated with those agents today. Moreover, we’re looking at a broader program than just where the DOACs are being. That’s where the subsequent indications come into play. And with both SSP and ACS, so there’s still significant unmet need in both of those diseases. They’re all also all relatively large commercial opportunity. SSP is roughly 800,000 patients in the U.S. and the big ex U.S. markets. ACS is well over 1 million, and we all know that AF is a big [indiscernible].
So put it all together, feel good coming out of the Phase II programs, that we have what we need to move forward with the registrational studies. And if those studies are successful, we think there’s meaningful commercial opportunity.
Terence Flynn
And within AF, are you willing to give any more detail in terms of how you might position or design that trial? I know it’s more of a Samit question than a Chris question. But as you think about the patients you mentioned like either not getting to an adequate dose or maybe higher-risk patients that have higher propensity risk factors, how do you think about kind of the carve-out? And then is it likely you use Eliquis as the comparator or Xarelto or still TBD?
Christopher Boerner
I think that it’s still — I think we’re going to have to work through the details of exactly how we design these studies. I think if you go after a higher-risk population, you got to make sure you can identify those patients, will weigh ex ante going into the study. So I think there are a lot of questions that we’re going to have to work through. But I think the good news is if you step back between the 2 Phase II studies as well as what we know about the mechanism here, we feel very good about our ability to design studies that are going to have a potential in the marketplace and potentially drive physician behavior and improve the outcomes for patients. We feel good about that.
Terence Flynn
Okay. And then last one on milvexian. It’s just a $5 billion guidance figure that your partner, J&J, provided. Again, are you willing to provide any more detail around what indications go into that? And now we have some of the more details on the Phase III design. And I guess, confidence level now that you’ve seen the Phase II data in that projection.
Christopher Boerner
We still have confidence in that $5 billion number. That $5 billion number includes the 3 indications that we discussed. Obviously, that’s a nonrisk-adjusted number so those studies [indiscernible] positive. But that’s — again, I kind of go back to what do you need that $5 billion number. For one, you need to believe that those are meaningful opportunities. I talked about the size of the — relative size of those markets. You need to believe that you have a clear and compelling benefit. And I think that if you look at what we’re seeing with Factor XIa, you were seeing that you have an ability to combine this with standard of care or provide an opportunity for patients who aren’t getting Factor Xa therapies today. And I think that gives us reason to . But obviously, we need to get the Phase III studies up and running and [indiscernible] way out.
Terence Flynn
Okay. Great. Maybe moving on to another important product cycle, Camzyos, again and also recently approved. Congratulations. I know it’s another one you’re really excited about. I think you’ve talked about 4 key things. So demand, the number of stocks that are REMS certified, and then how quickly you can get patients on drug and then converting those patients over to commercial. So maybe give us an update on kind of each of those things in terms of the progress that your organization is making against those. And then how we should think about kind of ramp second half of this year and into [indiscernible].
Christopher Boerner
Yes. So first and foremost, you got to drive awareness for the product. We feel great about that. The product is — the feedback that we’ve gotten from customers and seller, this is a product that is having a significant impact, positive impact on patients. That’s what’s being played back to us. In fact, we’ve been pleasantly surprised at the extent to which that feedback has been almost positive. So awareness is high. Feedback from customers is very, very good.
Second thing we look at is, as you referenced, getting the infrastructure put in place and getting physicians REMS-certified. This is not a space historically that you have REM. If a physician is going to go through the effort to become REMS-certified, do you have reason to believe that they’ve got patients in mind for the product? And there, we’ve seen very good feedback from customers, and we’ve seen that translate into roughly 1,900 physicians who are REMS-certified as of today. And we’re seeing a nice increase on that week-over-week. And the feedback on the REMS process is relatively straightforward, fits into how they think about managing these patients. So feel very good about that.
Third is then making sure that, that infrastructure is set up. There’s sort of a range of how customers are thinking about this. You’ve got some large institutions that have moved very quickly to get established and pull patients in and get those patients on to therapy. You have some other larger institutions that are still sort of putting the infrastructure in place and deciding, do they want to bring patients in, have a Camzyos day, for example, or how are they going to sort of sequence patients? And then you have some smaller institutions that have moved very quickly and are still sort of taking the approach of they move quickly to get 1 patient on therapy, they’re going to see how that — those 1 or 2 patients do and then they’ll bring more patients in.
As you step back from that, what we’ve said in terms of the ramp is to think about this as patients in general are going to come in as they come in for their routine, roughly every 4 to 6 months. And so what we’re seeing now in terms of patients getting on to therapy, we’ve seen improvements in week-over-week in terms of the number of patients getting dosed. We’re seeing a nice healthy clip, not only in terms of the number of institutions that are putting 1 patient on therapy, but the depth is driving, sort of they’re putting more patients on therapy. So that’s encouraging.
And then like I said, that feedback that we’re getting in terms of the impact of the drug is then translating into additional interest in adding more patients. So add it all up, nice increase in the number of patients who are — physicians who are REMS-certified and ready to put patients on. We’re seeing a nice healthy increase week-over-week in terms of patients being treated. And obviously, we’ll be able to provide more detail as we get into the third quarter call.
Terence Flynn
And are you willing to provide a number in terms of commercial coverage right now in terms of where that stands?
Christopher Boerner
Yes. So it’s important to think about this market as very different from the market that we just talked about, which is here we’re not expecting — we don’t have rebate walls in this setting. We’re not expecting significant payer pushback here. And so we’re in the process of formulary negotiations. Now those formularies will be coming out later this year, and we feel good about the position that we’re in. Again, this is a product that’s — the first product to come to market to treat these patients. Most of these patients prior to Camzyos were being treated with beta blockers or calcium channel blockers. So this is really the first meaningful therapy for these patients.
Again, it’s not a market where you have competitive rebates that you’re worried about. And so we’re working through right now with payers the formulary negotiation. We’re also making sure that we’re dealing with any in-market prior authorizations or medical exceptions that we need to deal with. And keep in mind that virtually all of these patients are going to have access to a 35-day starter pack that they can initiate therapy while we work through some of those accounts.
Terence Flynn
Okay. Great. Maybe just in the last few minutes, CAR-T, another important area for you guys. You’ve made a big push here obviously post the Celgene acquisition. You have 2 products, Abecma, Breyanzi. Just high level, first, reimbursement dynamics on the Medicare side. Are institutions now at least cost-neutral there from your sense as we think about some of the early hurdles that they had to work through?
Christopher Boerner
Yes. We’ve had no reimbursement challenges with either of these products. The DRG that is specific to CAR-T has certainly helped in that regard. But the pushback that was prevalent for these products when they launched is not something that has been in any way a barrier to the launch of these.
Terence Flynn
Great. And then on the supply side, I know that’s the other area that’s been a bottleneck. So maybe just give us an update on kind of progress that’s been made and kind of timing of bringing on more supply here for these 2 products.
Christopher Boerner
Yes. I mean I think at the macro level, a few things to keep in mind for both of these products. First, demand for both products is . Second, we actually like the profile for both of these products. And what we’re hearing played back to us is that for Abecma, for example, profile is holding up. We actually saw a real-world data that were presented earlier this year, which shows that you’re getting in the real-world clinical data that is approximating exactly what we saw in the clinical study, which is really important to customers. So we like that profile and customers like that profile as well.
Breyanzi, we think we have a best-in-class profile. We just got the second-line approval, gives us the broadest label of any product — any CAR-T product in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. So again, the profile looks good there. And overall, the feedback on the product characteristics has been — is — continues to be very strong for both drugs.
The manufacturing dynamics are different between the 2. We’ll start Abecma. Abecma, what we had said is that we had anticipated being able to increase the supply going into the second half of the year. We actually increased supply in Q2, and we’re continuing to see an improvement in our supply ability, both on the vector and the product supply coming into the second half of this year and going into next year. So there, it seems to have been dedicated to make that happen. Feel good about where are.
Breyanzi, it’s a little bit of a different story. With Breyanzi, obviously, with the second-line approval, we had hoped to be able to improve capacity coming into the second half of the year. It looks like now, that’s going to be pushed into 2023. The good news though is the same manufacturing team at a sort of general level that was working on Abecma is focused on Breyanzi as well. As you know from the history of CAR-T manufacturing, this technology is very complicated. Almost every company that’s been in this space has encountered some challenges. We have confidence we’ll work through it. But there, we have seen what we had hoped to deliver in the second half of this year to be pushed into [indiscernible].
Terence Flynn
Okay. Great. I guess just a follow-up in terms of the next wave of myeloma drugs. Obviously, we’ve seen the BCMA CAR-Ts. We’re expecting at least one BCMA bispecific to be approved maybe later this year. So obviously, you guys have a tremendous commercial footprint in myeloma. As you think about where those bispecifics are likely to be positioned relative to the CAR-Ts, how are you guys thinking about that dynamic?
Christopher Boerner
Well, the simplistic way that myeloma has been treated thus far relatively sort of lines of therapy sort of progressed that way. I think the way we’ve always felt that this market is going to evolve just given the sheer volume of competition, different mechanisms coming into play. You’ve talked about BCMA, but that’s not the only thing that play here.
So I think the way we see it playing out is that it’s going to be carved out by specific patient types across those lines of therapy. And so while unquestionably, you’re going to see other BCMA-targeted agents enter the space and be successful, we still believe that CAR-T is going to play an important role. It’s going to be specific to a given patient type. Some of that’s going to play out with respect to additional studies that will determine what patients and where the product will be used. But what we’re seeing very clearly is that the level of activity, both in terms of efficacy, the ability from a convenience standpoint to have one-and-done and just the enthusiasm that’s being played back from customers is that, there is an interest in having CAR-T available to patients really across multiple lines of therapy. We have to see the data play out, but that’s how we see that in general, this landscape is going to evolve.
Terence Flynn
Okay. Great. Well, I think we’re up against time, but really appreciate the time this morning, Chris. Thank you so much. And congratulations again on the approval.
Christopher Boerner
Thank you. Good. Thank you.
Be the first to comment