Sanofi (NASDAQ:SNY) Citi’s 17th Annual BioPharma Conference September 7, 2022 2:40 PM ET
Company Participants
Bill Sibold – EVP, Sanofi Genzyme; President Sanofi NA, Sanofi SA
Conference Call Participants
Peter Verdult – Citi
Peter Verdult
Okay. So good afternoon, everyone. It’s Peter Verdult here from the pharma team. I’m delighted to be hosting Bill Sibold. I don’t think he needs an introduction, but just for completeness, Global Head of Specialty Pharma and the President of North America. Bill, great to have you with us. I thought — I hope you don’t mind sort of the context of this call where we sort of characterized as the good.
Luckily for you, you run most of those businesses, the bad, which is probably the pipeline developments and potentially ugly with regards to DenTek. So that’s the sort of theme of the talk on the next at 40, 45 minutes. You may choose to disagree and feel free to tell me where I’m wrong. That’s the way I’m going to address it.
But perhaps before we do that, are there any high-level comments you want to make before we get into the details. And before we do that, the audience, this is me moderating not monopolizing. So if you have any questions, please take a hand up. I’ll make sure that mic is given to you, and you can put your questions to Bill.
So, Bill on over to you.
Bill Sibold
Well, thank you. It is great to be here and see you face to face. Look, if we just reflect a little bit on Q2 and maybe starting with Dupixent. Dupixent is, it’s a rocket ship. It’s still at the beginning. It is just a once-in-a-career type of product to work on annualizing at close to €8 billion. And it’s really just at the beginning, the specialty care GBU, which you pointed out, I’m responsible for, a 20% growth in the first half of the year. Now the largest business unit within Sanofi, which I think is really a proof point of the transition to a much more innovative portfolio. And I think — and I’m sure we’ll get into the — in the pipeline in a little bit as well.
We also see vaccines continuing to grow 9% in Q2. Gen medicines with their new business model in Rezurock, which is, I think, performing above certainly our plans. CHC now for the third quarter in a row above market growth. And looking ahead with our own pipeline of wholly-owned products AFA, tolebrutinib, which we can give an update on in amlitilimab, we’re making this transition to being much more innovative with the stated goal of being the leaders in the industry in immunology.
And we believe with the pipeline that we put together, you were at our Immunology Day. We talked about 13 different assets that are there. And we’re really looking at how do you play to win in that space. So I think we’re in this moment of transitions. I think progress is being made. It’s certainly not without setbacks. I think as you start to search for a highly innovative, first-in-class, best-in-class portfolio, that comes with some risk as well, and you are going to have things that stumble along the way.
You could take the approach, which I’d say was old Sanofi, which is small molecules incremental, if any, added benefit that doesn’t really get you to the place of being first-in-class, best-in-class. And that’s — so we’re in that transition. So I think on a lot of levels, we’re actually moving in a very positive direction with some strong proof points.
Question-and-Answer Session
Q – Peter Verdult
Got it. Okay. When I was with Paul in New York Q1 roadshow, it was clear that it’s coming up now to three years since I was there as well. We all stood up in Boston and the plate wind strategy was unveiled, midterm targets were revealed and very much BOI margin and free cash flow focused.
And this has not been a story about you smashing the margins, you’ve been investing in the business, driving efficiencies, trying to improve the pipeline. But it was pretty clear from Paul that come as early as next year — after three years an update likely probably you want to pivot towards sort of revenue, more revenue-focused target than BOI and free cash flow.
So just — I know you can’t commit to anything today, but is that the right way of characterizing how the management team is thinking about when the market should expect an update to midterm target.
Bill Sibold
Well, look, I would say that we’re not guiding the top line growth, but I think we’re certainly delivering it, which is as we kicked off with, obviously, led by Dupixent. But as the portfolio is moving towards more of a growth portfolio as the pipeline matures. I think we’ve been really focused Pete, on kind of all aspects of the P&L. We’ve been looking at top line growth and feel like we are moving certainly in that direction. But I think there’s been really good disciplined management of the rest of the business. We’ve seen that.
We’ve seen that we’ve had continuing expansion of our margins. And we’ve, I think, taken the steps to make sure that we’re allocating and spending in the right way. So Remember, our strategy that we put forth, the play-to-win strategy, I think a key piece of it was delivery of results. And I think we’ve shown that very clearly, move towards innovation, first-in-class, best-in-class.
There’s going to be stumbling along the way, but we are certainly changing the portfolio to that. And starting really with the cultural transformation, and we’re well into that. And I have to say, of the 10 years that I’ve been with the Company now, it is a completely different company than what I joined or was with for the first seven years.
Peter Verdult
Got it. Just staying with a couple of high-level areas, the Inflation Reduction Act, we all know that some of you is probably least more protected than other companies. But just any general comments you’re willing to make about what Dupixent cleanly be in some sort of scope later this decade is your thoughts on the potential impact from the Inflation Reduction Act?
Bill Sibold
Yes. Look, specifically with Dupixent, you’re looking out to 2031 before it would even be included in a basket to be reviewed. So nothing certainly short term with Dupixent. I think overall, the headline from the act is that it’s bad for innovation. It doesn’t really go to ultimately helping patients with affordability, skirts around that. And as I said, we just don’t think it’s going to be great for innovation. I think from our perspective, you can look and say, how did the act in versus what was HR3.
Clearly, for the industry, it’s not as bad as HR3 would have been. The various components of it, inflation penalties for pricing for us, not a real concern. We have implemented an industry-leading pricing policy, which was pegging any price increase to nothing beyond medical inflation. So we don’t have any real risk there as it is with the direct Medicare negotiations, as we said, Dupixent certainly far down the road. We don’t have so many products that would be subject to that in any short term anyways.
And then finally, the Medicare Part D redesign, first of all, from a Medicare B and D perspective as a company, it’s single-digit exposure that we have to global sales. I think there, overall, it’s something that we feel like we’re pretty well positioned for. But as you clearly move towards a more innovative portfolio you are going to hit the catastrophic level sooner, which will push back some of the requirements, obviously, to the manufacturer like us. Net-net, I think, relatively speaking, we are well positioned in the industry. And a total though, I don’t think this is a good thing for industry, obviously, and we will see the effects of this for many years.
Peter Verdult
Got it. And then just two questions again outside that we house so to speak, because it’s not spec pharma, but I think that would be ridiculous if we didn’t address that, given the audience and what’s been going on in the share price. But I realize you can’t say much incrementally on downtime, but can you at least comment on whether there is a collaboration between the defendants in terms of working together to resolve the situation. But what can you actually say around your strategy about bending your and yourself to these lawsuits?
Bill Sibold
Yes. So look, I would first of all direct everyone to our August 11 comments. Those are probably the most recent and best to take a look at. First of all, we think that there’s been a huge overreaction to this. Not quite sure what precipitated it, but there isn’t a lot of new news here. And remember, from our perspective, over a 35-year history with this product, we have a very thin sliver of time with it. So I can’t really speak so much about a lot of the details. But again, we think that it’s an overreaction. And we agree with the agencies that don’t see a cause and effect of cancer caused by Zantac. So let’s see, hopefully, calmer heads prevail, and this gets behind the industry.
Peter Verdult
Okay, it’s a cheeky question here. Can you say anything more about — we all know you’ve got arbitration proceedings with [Veria]. Is it still just end of the year? Or can you be a little bit more specific as to when you might think we’ll get announced from that?
Bill Sibold
Yes. I can’t say anything more specific than what we’ve already said.
Peter Verdult
Well, that would be the case try anyway.
Bill Sibold
I appreciate it.
Peter Verdult
Fair enough. All right. And then lastly, before we get on to your bread and butter, total vaccines, any comments you want to make about the outlook on the flu business and when we might expect to see real data points on your mRNA vaccine platform because I think the concerns around mRNA disruption have gone away. But at the same time, Sanofi’s not getting any credit or benefit because of the data, so anything you can say as to when you want to see data points there?
Bill Sibold
Yes. So just as a reminder, from the Q2 earnings, we talked about this being another record sales year. If you think about between Q3 and Q4, we would expect about 60% in Q3, 40% in Q4 as far as the remainder of the year goes.
Regarding mRNA, we completed the Phase 1/2 trial of the modified mRNA, monovalent flu and have preliminary data in-house, which point in the right direction. We’re on track to start the modified mRNA quadrivalent flu in the second half of this year, 2022.
And we presented that during the Vaccines Day. So I’d just push everyone back to take a look and see what we said there. So, we’ll have results in the next three quarters about that to have a better idea of where we are compared to our target product profile. So, we’re working on it. It’s going to be data driven here, Pete, is what I’d say.
Peter Verdult
Got it. Okay. Well, let’s get into your wheelhouse. It’s going to — has to be Dupixent because you’ve got — you’ve got a great trends you’d point out to lead everywhere, COPD next year. I would like to also spend time on exactly where we should start to compact with profitability to step up because all be alluding to the fact it could actually happen this year. But when we see the possibility step and lastly I know that you’ve a lot of money to say looking at the IP and trying to extend it. Where are we on that journey and why we get nothing?
Bill Sibold
Okay. Lots there. Look, it is a rocket ship, as I opened up with. We continue to be impressed everywhere in the world. It is following a similar trajectory. And the thing that really is remarkable about the product is it’s the depth that it goes and the breadth. The depth within an indication, we’re down to six month old in atopic dermatitis, which to think about a biologic being used in such a young child, it’s really amazing.
And now, we have the full aid spectrum in AD where — and we’re looking, obviously, to extend in any of the other indications, which is the next opportunity, which is any place, it is a type 2 disease, we’re seeing that it is working and it’s working well.
And then you multiply that, obviously, by the international component to it, China, we think, is a blockbuster in itself, and we’re on a great track with China today. And over the next few years, we’ll have additional indications as well. So at the very beginning, COPD, a huge opportunity as you know, a third leading cause of death.
And I think at our Immunology Day we talked about and just the G7 about 2 million patients that are approachable. And in the $13 billion way point that Paul disclosed at our Immunology Day, we don’t have COPD included in that. And the reason being is it’s quite binary when you add COPD or you don’t have COPD.
We think that it’s a huge opportunity. And just to be allow me just to bridge to itepekimab IL-33 when you think of COPD the non-type 2 is about 2/3 of patients, Type 2, which is Dupi is about 1/3 of patients. So with those two assets in partnership with Regeneron, we cover really a significant portion of the opportunity that there is in COPD.
So looking towards the future there, I think that is really just another huge, huge opportunity for us. You had asked as well about profitability, yes, we’ve talked about in 2022, it being accretive, if you will, to our BOI throughout the year. And as we add to the top line, obviously, we are getting closer to the end of the full development cycle of Dupixent.
So we have, obviously, the profitability improves over time. And we’ve also looked at, I think JB has mentioned in the past, some of the modifications improvements that we make from the manufacturing perspective. So I think things are really all lining up to be just not only a top line contributor but more of a contributor to profitability as well.
Peter Verdult
I appreciate that a little bit. So beyond Dupixent, there’s a number of smaller indications you’re doing, but really right to say that basically from 2024, R&D spend on Dupixent will materially reduce.
Bill Sibold
I’d say it’s gradually reducing, Pete.
Peter Verdult
And then in terms — you’re accretive to the BI margin this year. But when you get the real benefits from the manufacturing chain process changes, is that more next year?
Bill Sibold
Yes, we start seeing it more in 2024, actually totally, and that’s what we look at when you compare then back to this year, it would — it served like about $1 billion in top line. And the way to calculate that is you’ve got $600 million roughly from like a margin perspective. And when you do the split with Regeneron, it’s more like $300 million for us. So it drops right through. I mean, this is just continuous improvement. Both companies are doing a great job on it.
Peter Verdult
And then, is there anything to say on your efforts to extend IP when we might get nothing on that either way ongoing pricing?
Bill Sibold
Look, we will update you when we have anything new to report, but as you can imagine, a real concerted effort to see just what we can do with that. 2031, we’ve still got a ways to go with just the current landscape that we have.
Peter Verdult
And Bill, I think you’ve dealt with this situation quite well in terms of all the concerns around JAKs and the impact they would have and team. But any latest you’ll hear feedback you’re hearing or thoughts on the trends you’re seeing in terms of the impact or not, they’re having on the Dupixent.
Bill Sibold
Yes, look, it’s — they’re having a great impact on Dupixent. Competition is good. Competition helps us. We need to grow the market. If you take a look at the bio penetration, it’s about 9% right now, that’s expected to grow to somewhere between 25% and 30%. The way you get the growth Dupixent can do it, but it needs help with others that are out there talking about AD, making it absolutely more of a topic and an action for physicians.
So, we need that competition in every market that we have seen competition launch, a couple of things have happened. Market growth has accelerated and Dupixent’s leadership position has just been reinforced, right? We’ve been — from an NBRx perspective, we continue to win because we really do have the best profile. And whether you look at kind of where we are today, the JAKs, we consider that their broad immunosuppressants.
They certainly have a role for some patients who perhaps having a needle version or they aren’t quite satisfied with what they’re getting from Dupixent. But for the most part, it’s awfully hard to find a rationale where you use a product with that safety profile when you’ve got something which we announced just this week, 500,000 patients on Dupixent, right? That is just a remarkable number and across a lot of different indications that it becomes habit more than anything I would say now, and it’s going to be hard for anyone to come in and displace.
Peter Verdult
Got it. I have very conservative time — so I will — I want to move on, but I will — I promise I make sure that their hands up now. Okay. Can we move to multiple sclerosis? So there’s Aubagio to deal with next year and the management team are very keen to say that’s the only LOE or major LOE that you’ve got to deal with. Well, we obviously charge this year on amcenestrant, but then in absence of R&D, amcenestrant next year.
And I believe we can confirm that Sanofi wants to demonstrate some degree of margin progression next year while maintaining investment in the R&D and driving the top line. So my first question is managing the LOE. The second question is tolebrutinib. I see it was a thorny issue for Q2. It’s clear that [indiscernible] appreciate how much focus there was and then there’s the updates. So can you give us the latest on tolebrutinib in terms of why the audience shouldn’t be writing that asset off at the moment?
Bill Sibold
Okay. So first of all, with the Aubagio, it’s been a great product for us overall. I mean that’s — actually came here to build the MS franchise with Aubagio and Lemtrada, and nobody had expectations for Aubagio and we ended up making it an incredibly successful product. And in some countries in Europe, it’s the number one oral.
So when that disappears and you know the efficiency with which in the U.S. losing exclusivity is pretty rapid. So we do have to plan for that. Now what we are doing is with the tolebrutinib coming, we have a valuable asset in our team that has been responsible for Aubagio. And we will be not losing that asset and making sure that they are redeployed on other activities in the meantime before they bridge to tolebrutinib so that they can have the fastest start possible.
When you say, well, what’s your confidence in tolebrutinib now, it still is very high now. Just to give you the latest update, and I think Paul mentioned this last week, the DMC released the hold that we had temporarily voluntarily put in place globally. FDA, we are…
Peter Verdult
All the studies or just people…
Bill Sibold
Thanks. So the relapsing studies, Gemini are fully enrolled. So we are done with enrollment there. And so the progressive studies have started again. Now FDA, we have a commitment. We’ve told you that by the end of this month, we will submit any of the — submit the request that FDA had, and we hope by the end of the year to have that result so that we can resume dosing again in the U.S. as well.
So look, we are — all the very few cases of daily that we had, we’re looking at those extremely carefully and making sure that we understand them, that will be part of the review package that we send back to the FDA. When you think about what does it mean for the asset overall?
Just to put it in context, all the MS products have something challenge — some challenges that they deal with. If you look at liver, you have to go back all the way to the first products that were launched in MS, the interferons and they have liver injury, liver failure and so forth in their labels. The community is extremely used to liver elevations within the treatment of the disease.
When we’ve talked to the physicians all over the world, there is a real interest and excitement about reinitiating dosing. There’s still high expectations about what tolebrutinib can do in the class. And if there’s any monitoring, et cetera, that is a — that happens with products today. Aubagio, we had every other week monitoring in Europe for a long time, and it still became the leading product.
So that — it’s something that the group can deal with put that in comparison to dealing with PML or some other adverse event. So I think that ultimately, it’s going to depend on one does the risk mitigation that we put in place, which is the monitoring, which since that was put in place in May, we haven’t had any challenges. Two, really, what does the efficacy look like, right? At the end of the day, if the product is not really, really effective, it’s going to — there’s no place for it.
Now — and we are encouraged by the Phase 2 work, you looked at MRI results that were okra-like, but in a pill. And I think that’s something which is differentiated even within the BTKI class. And then again, the final piece, if you show any efficacy in progressive, there’s not a product that’s out there today that can truthfully say that it has a significant effect on progressive disease.
So clearly, not what you want to have happen but it doesn’t change the ultimate opportunity that exists if the profile holds up from both a safety perspective that we’re going through now, but also from an efficacy perspective. So, still very excited about that, that program.
Peter Verdult
When you take all those comments, and you narrow that onto the tap on to the fact that like with many of your competitors, a different portion of amount patients are in your Western Ukraine, is it really feasible to think that we could still — are we now going to have to wait until 2024 before we see readouts for any of these Phase 3 programs?
Bill Sibold
No, we are on track to read out next year as we’ve said all along for the Gemini trials which are the relapsing, right, because they’re fully enrolled. So that’s what we’re on track for. We haven’t changed that.
Peter Verdult
And just to be clear, is it fair as a management team, still wanting to demonstrate some degree of margin progression next year where you got the LOE of Aubagio deal with?
Bill Sibold
Look, I don’t think we haven’t made any comments or guidance about that yet.
Peter Verdult
Okay. Any questions on MS from the audience? No. Okay. Can we go to rare diseases and get a couple of recent approvals, priority review on efanesoctocog alfa. I think consensus is seeing this as sort of $1 billion-ish product. I realize I’m going to give peak sales guidance, but just talk to the outlook for rare diseases as a whole and particularly in hemophilia and the internal optimism that you have when you launch that product next year?
Bill Sibold
Yes. So look, I would tell you we think alfa is going to be over $1 billion, right? I mean just to get some of the — this is a opportunity to reset expectations in hemophilia A. The hemophilia community has had to deal with moderate efficacy, I would say. Alfa is the first product that can get you into the normal range of factor level for the majority of the week. That is just something that they haven’t been able to think about in the past, now they have the opportunity to.
So when you look at just the dynamics of the market, it’s about the hemophilia A non-inhibitor market is about €7.4 billion, expected to grow to about €10 million. And of that €7.4 billion, about €5 billion of it is a factor. There’s 20 different products that have insignificant plus/minus market share throughout that. So it is a segment that is ripe for innovation. We think that alfa is will be the undisputed best factor in hemophilia A.
Our ask to the community is that all hemophilia A patients on factor would convert to alfa because we think it’s that much better product. That seems to be aligned. If you go back to our ISTH presentation as well when the KOLs were speaking, so we have very high hopes for alfa now. That’s just the factor piece of the market and also not every patient is going to switch.
Patients have their own preference for the products they like. Physicians have incentives sometimes beyond efficacy that would keep them having somebody on the product. But huge opportunity there of that €5 billion — of that €5 billion, about 60% is between U.S. and Japan, which are our territories that we have responsibility for. That leaves the non-factor market, which currently is Hemlibra. We have heard from physicians and patients even who are on Hemlibra, those that desire higher efficacy are going to consider alfa as well.
So look, we think it’s pretty transformational. And don’t forget, we have fitusiran, which is a completely different way of looking at things, SiRNA it is going further down to the last step in the coagulation cascade, antithrombin III. And we think that, that is an opportunity where for some patients SOS 6 subcu doses per year.
So if you want to talk about convenience without compromising efficacy, certainly not the efficacy level that you can get to normal within alfa, we think that we’re in a really good position in the hemophilia market. If you look towards our more — when I say traditional rare disease businesses, that’s been a great success story across Gaucher, Pompe and Fabry disease and now the addition of ASMD with our recent approval and launch of olipudase alfa.
That business has been growing extremely well. We had double-digit growth in the second quarter. I would look towards more of the first half of the year, which is a little bit less than that and ultimately, say that we would expect mid-single-digit growth of that franchise going forward. The innovation is coming.
We had the launch of Nexviazyme for Pompe disease, which is our next-generation Pompe product. We believe it should become the market leader. It’s better than Myozyme or Lumizyme, and we believe that it will lead there. And then as I said, the ASMD launch of olipudase alfa, not a lot of patients, only about 2,000 between EU, U.S. and Japan, but these are people that haven’t had a therapy ever.
It took us 20 years to bring this product to market. And I think it is a great example of resilience and continuing to pursue innovation despite multiple setbacks along the way. The community is excited. We had — have been on the phone with a lot of community leaders over the last week, and we’ve been approved and there is tremendous excitement about that product.
Peter Verdult
If you go to the lifestyle store sort of pricing or I assume given how small [indiscernible] population is, what sort of price point are you going in with?
Bill Sibold
Yes, it’s rare pricing, right?
Peter Verdult
Quite a wide range to be a little both.
Bill Sibold
Yes. So, we’ve disclosed on a per-vial basis, right around 7,100, 7,300 per vial. And then it depends on weight.
Peter Verdult
And fitusiran data is still on track to be next year or is it ’24?
Bill Sibold
I think it is fitusiran.
Peter Verdult
Into ’23.
Bill Sibold
Yes.
Peter Verdult
Thank you. So just to be clear, in terms of [indiscernible] and online, the key readouts from the pipeline next year in Dupixent COPD, tolebrutinib and fitusiran, what about the oncology assets? Is there much coming out there? The movement in quite a little bit on some of those assets such as IL-2, SHP2, CEACAM5, so what are the key readouts can we look forward to next year?
Bill Sibold
So look, just — maybe just a comment on oncology, just to kind of set up just a little bit. So we’ve made oncology priority. That hasn’t changed, right? We had the amcenestrant set back. But again, as you’re going for first-in-class, best-in-class, there are going to be failures. We had — I can’t tell you how disappointing amcenestrant is, very disappointing, obviously. But I think how we reacted as a company when we had the data in hand, the decision was quick to discontinue it and reallocate the capital back into, again, other innovative assets in the portfolio.
So it’s unfortunate. It’s what happens on to the next thing. We have CEACAM5, which we think is our ADC is something which is a promising asset. The big question is, is having a population that are high expressers of CEACAM5 and you’re targeted, are you going to be about to have a better efficacy effect? We’ve got our kind of Phase 2/3 study will have results as we look into next year. And if it looks as good as we think, we think there’s a real product there.
But again, we’re not only going to be comparing it against — we’re going to have to compare it against all products that are in the space and see that this enriched population really helps. IL-2, the rest of the competition is kind of drifting away here. There’s a question you may ask, well, why would we stay enthusiastic about it.
As John said from the beginning when we did this, we like the very specifics of this product and the fact that we can dose higher, and we think that we can avoid the safety and tolerability issues, gives us a chance now to further explore even higher doses if we want and looking at dosing frequency as well. So, it’s something that it allows us just to expand that program a little bit further, and we’re still hopeful about it.
SHP2, we’re combining with both the KRAS is out there. Let’s see what happens on a — from a monotherapy perspective, we did show efficacy and unlike others, but ultimately, the data is going to read out. So — and then beyond that, NK cells. I mean that’s — when you ask what’s really exciting. I think that’s another really exciting opportunity really for us as a company to lead.
So, we’re going to be opening up a lot of envelopes in the coming 12 to 18 months. So really going to guide to say where these good bets were not, but we also have earlier-stage assets that we’ll continue to focus on oncology.
Peter Verdult
Got it. I’m coming back to your immunology. So, I totally get the arguments around why going after OX40 ligand is better than a receptor. I suppose I’m concerned that the FDA doesn’t allow you to accelerate your development time line. So just when are we going to find out whether what you laid out at the Immunology Day is exactly what’s going to happen, and we don’t run the risk of another bananas skin and OX40 delay. It seems that IRAK4 has got a PTC signal.
And lastly, there’s a bit left field. If you had a sort of PDE4 inhibitor that was out there with a better GI profile than you have with Otezla, would that sort of asset be attracted to you?
Bill Sibold
That’s a lot of questions. We only have four minutes and 57 seconds, I don’t know if we can get to it…
Peter Verdult
Quick one.
Bill Sibold
Look, we think targeting the ligand is the right way to go. I think whenever you talk about capabilities, strong research capabilities only aren’t about discovery. They’re about making the right choices from a BD perspective. And I think we’ve made the right choice from a BD perspective. As soon as we have an update on regulatory, we’ll let you know about what the time lines look like.
We have really tried to accelerate in our portfolio everywhere that we can, and we will continue to do so. And we know that as we try to accelerate everything, we’re not going to be able to accelerate everything. But as soon as we have an update, we’ll certainly communicate that IRAK4 we agree Kymera’s assessment about the QT issue that is neither dose-dependent nor something that would prevent us from going forward with the development program.
We’ve got a Phase 1b underway in HSN also in AD. It’s going to be 28 days, we’ll get a little sense of the efficacy, but we’ll also be able to see what’s — how does the QT look over that period of time. Overall immunology, as you know, from the Immunology Day 13, 13 different assets, we are playing there to be the leader in immunology.
We think that, that’s possible. We do have at least two, three orals that we look at as ways to expand what that market looks like today. Dupixent is the gold standard, and we don’t see anything that changes that in like the next 10 years. It is a great product but there are areas that are opening and emerging where, as you say, an Otezla like product in that space where there’s patients that maybe have milder disease or they haven’t transitioned yet to a biologic, there’s a great opportunity there.
So that’s why we’re going to continue to look for. And not only what we have internally, but we will continue to look externally for other assets that could fit that need.
Peter Verdult
I don’t want to overstay my welcome here because I’m mostly out of time. So thank you for your patience. Unless there’s any final questions from the room, I’m going to thank Bill and the IR team here there is. So, Bill, thanks very much for attending.
Bill Sibold
Thank you for having me.
Peter Verdult
With the rest of your conference and thank you very much. Thank you.
Bill Sibold
Thank you.
Be the first to comment