Gilead Sciences, Inc. (NASDAQ:GILD) Wells Fargo Healthcare Conference September 6, 2023 11:00 AM ET

Company Participants

Andrew Dickinson - Chief Financial Officer

Conference Call Participants

Mohit Bansal - Wells Fargo

Mohit Bansal

All right. Thank you very much for joining us today. My name is Mohit Bansal. I'm one of the biopharma analysts here at Wells Fargo. And we have Andy Dickinson, CFO of Gilead with us. I think this is fifth year in a row. I'm hosting you at different platforms.

Andrew Dickinson

Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much for having us again.

Mohit Bansal

Thank you very much for joining. So I think we should start with, I think a few years ago, you started with this -- when you joined as a CFO, so the Gilead 2.0 and oncology progress and everything. So we'll talk a lot about that. But before we get into that, let's just briefly touch upon the core business, the HIV business here. And we will get to the -- I think you want to spend a lot of time on oncology right?

Andrew Dickinson

Sure. Yes.

Question-and-Answer Session

Q - Mohit Bansal

So let's just start with HIV, where we saw a favorable pricing tailwind in last few quarters. And I know you have guided a little bit conservatively that it happened in last few quarters, but now it may not. But you have been seeing that for quite some time now. So as investors and analysts, when we think about going forward, what should be our base case? And should we expect any reversal there, which we should worry about or how should we think about that?

Andrew Dickinson

Yes. On the pricing side. Well, maybe just to start off, I'll step back and comment on your first point, which is Dan O'Day, our CEO, has been here 4.5 plus years. I've been in the CFO role for almost four years. We are making a lot of progress, and the company is doing extraordinarily well. So when we look at it from a macro perspective, and I'll start with the HIV business, then we'll talk about the oncology business, which is really exciting. We're doing exactly what we plan to do. The strategy is paying dividends. You're seeing the results. Our quarterly results have been very strong, and we're really excited about where the business is overall and where the pipeline is. On HIV, specifically, again, the HIV business, which is our legacy, is still just an extraordinary business of the product portfolio and the development portfolio are extraordinarily strong. What you're seeing -- you've seen a lot of strength in our commercial performance over the last two-plus years, which is exciting. So we'll talk about the treatment market and the prevention market. But overall, a lot of that is driven by the growth of the market, not by price or net price. And so maybe we start there, Mohit, in terms of the market, the treatment market is growing 2% to 3% a year in the US and outside of the US. It's a little bit harder to see that in the script data, I think, because -- there's a difference between the retail market and what we call the nonretail market, which is 30% to 35% of the US market is non-retail. So think of those as some of the 340B and Cs and others. So what you see in the script data from the CVSs and Walgreens of the world doesn't always translate. In both the retail and the non-retail market, to your question on pricing, we've seen a shift to -- it's less about price increases and the net price realized, which really doesn't change that much year-over-year. But the mix of buyers has changed over the last couple of years, which has been favorable and not unexpected. And if you just look at what's happened with the economy, generally and the decrease in unemployment over time, it would be expected that more patients or people that are at risk of getting HIV would have commercial coverage or other areas. So you see the mix shifting. And to your question, we don't expect to see that unwind or change materially over the coming quarters or years. I think that you've seen a little bit of a move from lower -- more heavily discounted segments like the ADAP segments, either to Medicaid, Medicare or commercial segments or the 340B segments. But overall, again, the business is doing great, and it's driven predominantly by the growth in the market. In prevention -- as I talked about the treatment market growing 2% to 3%. In prevention, the market has grown 20%, plus or minus over the last couple of years. And again, the prevention -- HIV prevention market is still in very early days in terms of development of that market in the US and even more so outside of the US. So that's an exciting growth opportunity for us over the long run.

Mohit Bansal

So I want to talk about the prevention side of it because you have a once-a-day pill, but longer-acting could be a potential game changer. We have one from Wave or GSK, but this is not quite the longer acting that you are going to have. But are you seeing any new patients coming in with the Wave on the market? Also, given that their strength in Europe, are you seeing anything from Europe that is changing?

Andrew Dickinson

We're not seeing that much change. The therapies that are available, the vast majority of people that are at risk of getting HIV that take HIV prevention are taking daily oral medicines, either our marketed product, Descovy or the generic available medicine, which is generic Truvada, which was our previous flagship product that went generic three years ago. So when you think of -- you look at Descovy, Descovy has 40% plus of the market in the United States, which is extraordinary and speaks to value that it brings people at risk of getting HIV. It's also used for HIV treatment. A very small piece of the market today is utilizing the long-acting therapy that's available. And it's a good test case. But it's not the right long-acting therapy from our perspective. We're talking about intramuscular injections every month or every two months. So to your question, the prevention market, as I said, it's early days of development. If you fast forward to where we see the market going with lenacapavir, which is our novel HIV capsid inhibitor that is already approved for treatment. So it's already approved, it's already shown to work over a six-month period. It's in Phase III studies for prevention that we'll read out over the next couple of years and be launched. That should fundamentally change the HIV prevention market because you go to a market where you should see better outcomes because you're ensuring adherence and compliance. And it should also open up the market in Europe to your point given the significant benefits that it would have over the once daily oral medicines that are oftentimes used intermittently.

Mohit Bansal

Got it. But even without the population expansion, compliance and the gross-to-net improvement in that cells should be --

Andrew Dickinson

Absolutely. That's a great point. I mean I think when you think of the prevention market, when Truvada went generic three years ago, the branded prevention market was almost entirely in the US, it was about a $2 billion market. It's grown dramatically over the last three years. And again, Descovy has done incredibly well in an environment where it competes against generic. The market should grow even more. And then your, as you say, the economic model is very different because with the orals, patients or people at risk of getting HIV are not necessarily taking them every day. So the -- when you think about having an injectable that gives you six months coverage, you're getting paid for the benefit that it provides over six months, the model is very different than the oral model today. So the market should expand dramatically first it should in the US and Europe. It should open up branded therapy in Europe in a way that's not available today and then the economics of ensuring adherence and compliance are very different than the oral. So it's an exciting time for people at risk of getting HIV and for us in terms of what it means for the business in the long run.

Mohit Bansal

Got it. So is it fair to assume between your core HIV treatment franchise and Sunlenca in treatment or prevention, it could be a growing franchise for the rest of the HIV.

Andrew Dickinson

Yes. For a very long time. I mean certainly through the end of the decade, and we would expect beyond, it's a very important business that's going to grow as well. I mean when you think about where we are today, we have the flagship treatment product in Biktarvy. 46% of patients in the United States takes Biktarvy, it's still growing. We have the flagship treatment for prevention in Descovy. And then we have some incredibly important new treatment and prevention options that are in our pipeline, all of which will drive continued growth, not only through the end of the decade but beyond. So I know people always worry about especially Biktarvy goes generic in 2033. It may be subject to some of the price negotiations in the United States in '28 or beyond. Even with that when we look at the overall portfolio, we see an extraordinarily strong portfolio that can drive growth for many, many years to come.

Mohit Bansal

Right. I think people often forget that Biktarvy is the sixth iteration of HIV or fifth iteration of HIV pills you have. So I think at this point, we are waiting for the dance partner for Sunlenca for the treatment. So when could we learn more about that? And is it like in the next 12 to 24 months? And where are you at this time?

Andrew Dickinson

Yes, it is in the next 12 to 24 months. So again, Sunlenca, for those of you that don't know, is our long-acting HIV capsid inhibitor that I talked about earlier that's being studied for both treatment and prevention. There are nine partner molecules for it. So for treatment, you need to have at least one other molecule that pairs with it for an adequate treatment regimen. We have nine different potential partners that are being carried forward. If I remember correctly, five of those nine -- eight of them are wholly owned, one is with a partner. Of those nine, five are already in the clinic, and you certainly -- we will get a lot of data of Phase I studies, as you know, in HIV, are reasonably straightforward. And there is -- they tend to correlate significantly with what you will see in patients in longer-term studies. That's why our clinical development time lines have been so short relative to what you see in I&I or oncology. Historically. So it's a pretty straightforward. So five of the nine are in clinical studies, four of the nine are integrase inhibitors, and two of those are already in clinical studies. And you're talking about long-acting integrase inhibitors either once weekly options or every three months or every six month options. And we're targeting there subcutaneous injection. So it's a pretty exciting time. But to your question, yes, we will have a lot of data over the next 12 to 24 months in terms of the potential partners for lenacapavir or Sunlenca in treatment beyond Sunlenca as a monotherapy that's available today.

Mohit Bansal

Got it. If you guys have any questions, please feel free to. Okay. I have a lot. So I'll ask them. So I think at some point, you mentioned that in prevention, longer acting is probably more preferred versus shorter acting, at least in the treatment, Biktarvy sets a really high bar. So in long-term like even if you -- like when you get to a three-month shot or a weekly oral, my assumption is a three-month shot is probably a better alternative than a weekly oral. But how do you think about eventual market split between longer-acting versus shorter acting among in treatment patients?

Andrew Dickinson

Yes. So as you can imagine, we've done a lot of research on this topic. The caveat that I would provide is I'm not sure that the answers that you get today will be the same as the answers that you'll get three or four years from now when some of these theoretical regimens are actually approved and with real clinical data. So when you look at it today, let's just say roughly half of the patients that take HIV treatment are interested in a long-acting alternative. It may be more than that when you include the once weekly oral pills. But roughly half people indicate today that they would move to a long-acting treatment. My expectation -- our expectation is if we have an every six-month subcutaneous regimen that is as good as Biktarvy in terms of kind of the efficacy and tolerability that you could see more of the market move to that over the long run, just given the ease of adherence, physicians will push for it. They like to see their patients every six months, so it could make a lot of sense. In prevention, what we hear today is the market would dramatically expand overnight. Most people that are at risk of getting HIV don't want to take a pill every day or even if they take it on demand, would prefer not to take it. They would like to have the coverage over a longer period of time. So you could see the prevention market changed more dramatically more quickly than the treatment market. I think in both of them, you're talking about a very substantial portion of the market, moving to long-acting treatment over the next decade if the development of the products that we have, in particular, plays out the way that we expect.

Mohit Bansal

And given the demographics, compliance is an issue even in the treatment market, right? So it could --

Andrew Dickinson

Compliance, actually, it's surprising. Compliance is an issue in treatment too. It surprises people. It's not like an anti-hypertensive. But every time I see the numbers for compliance and HIV treatment, it's much lower than you'd expect. So even in HIV treatment, certainly, as I said, adherence compliance is a big issue in HIV prevention and it makes a huge difference in terms of the benefit that you see, the efficacy that you see in terms of preventing the transmission. But even in treatment, the compliance rates are much lower than you'd expect. So again, it goes back to the efficacy benefit that you can provide with a guaranteeing adherence and compliance is not to be understated. It's pretty important even in the treatment setting.

Mohit Bansal

Right. As promised, I'm leaving most of the time for the 2.2. So we'll talk about the two data releases which are not supposed to come out and they still came out, so different ones. So let's just start with the EVOKE-02. I think the initial release and then the later release, I think the response rate data looks really interesting. What do you think like -- I would love to understand the Gilead internal perspective on the data so far. And then from the street point of view, what do you think we are missing and what -- how the data could mature over time?

Andrew Dickinson

Let me step back first and talk about the oncology business, and then let's go to the EVOKE-02, which I think is really exciting and completely misunderstood by the market. And that data will be presented at World Lung on Sunday, so everyone can listen to the KOLs in terms of what they think. But I will get to that. When you step back and look at oncology today, I mean, Gilead was not an oncology player before Dan and others arrived. We had tried over time unsuccessfully. We had one very small oncology product. Obviously, we had moved into cell therapy with Kite, and that we're showing significant signs of promise and Dan and others have helped us take that to the next level. But when you look at our oncology business today, it's a $3 billion business and growing, growing rapidly. And then when you kind of think of oncology, and I think this is lost on people. Let's say there are three or four areas of real promise and interest in oncology today. Three of those four, Gilead is a leader or one of the leaders. So three of the most exciting areas are one, cell therapy. We are clearly the world leader. We have an extraordinary portfolio, best-in-class manufacturing, significant growth, you're going to see cell therapy grow dramatically over the next 20 years, let alone the next 10 years. You're probably going to see cell therapy going to I&I. That's incredibly exciting. Then you look at the Trop-2 antibodies, which -- and we'll talk about EVOKE-02 but with TRODELVY first-in-class approval, approved in two breast cancer indications, standard of care in triple-negative breast cancer also approved with an accelerated approval in breast cancer. We have incredible data with TRODELVY in very hard to treat very late-stage patients, as you know. And now we have this really promising lung cancer data that I'll talk about. And then finally, TIGIT, right? There's another huge area of growth. There's been a lot of developments as you've highlighted, another recent data leak from another program that just underscores what we believe, but TIGIT is additive to PD-1. There's an additive benefit. The question that remains is how much is the additive benefit and then how is it all going to play together. And when you really look at our portfolio, what's interesting, set aside cell therapy, which is its own area, but our TIGIT and TRODELVY fit perfectly together in terms of where they could go. I mean it's certainly possible with TIGIT data in TRODELVY but the standard of care in first-line lung cancer becomes in PD-L1 high expressers TRODELVY -- PD-1 plus TRODELVY plus TIGIT or any combination of those. So then let's step back and talk about the EVOKE-02 data set. So EVOKE-02 was -- it's a 4-arm Phase II study of TRODELVY on top of PD-1 and there's cohort A was in PD-L1 high expressers. So the cutoff was a 50% expression or higher. And then the cohort B was 1 to 50. What we showed in our data is that TRODELVY plus PD-1 in Cohort A led to a response rate of roughly 70%. I think it was 69%, which is extraordinary. What people are missing is that the standard of care today in first-line non-small cell lung cancer, PD-L1 high is PD-1 or PD-L1 monotherapy not a combination with chemo. Some patients do get the combination, and I'll talk about that in a second. But the standard of care and what the regulatory bodies want us to do our studies against is PD-1 monotherapy, which has shown response rates in that exact same patient population, roughly between 35% and 40%. So you're talking about 70% versus 35% to 40% response rate. Of course, in first-line non-small cell lung cancer, you're not going to get approved based on response rate data. So the whole key is does that lead to significant benefit in overall survival at the end of the day, PFS first, but overall survival is what's expected to get approval. The studies that have been done in the same study, the same patient population where people have studied PD-1 in combination with standard chemotherapeutic agents. And so the study that you hear about all the time is a KEYNOTE-189 study showed a similar response rate, overall response rate, which is great. Again, what our data showed, and I think the key takeaway for everyone is that TRODELVY is very active in first-line non-small cell lung cancer including in the PD-L1 high expressors. The response rate that you see is entirely aligned with and consistent with KEYNOTE-189. What people forget is that in KEYNOTE-189 in other studies patients can't take that standard chemotherapeutic regimen more than four cycles on average and you did not see in those studies a PFS or an OS benefit. So, yes, you saw a response rate benefit. And as a result in practice today some small number of patients are given PD-1 plus chemo in that setting, but it is not the standard of care. And in fact, the regulatory agencies do not expect or want us to compare that in our studies. So what we expect and the other key with our data that I think people are missing is the durability of response and then I'll get to kind of what it means for us overall. If you look at the spider plots and the data, and again, this data was released prematurely, you'll see the full data release at World Lung. 85%, if I remember correctly, of our patients are still on therapy, which includes TRODELVY as an antibody drug conjugate after six months. The spider plots from our perspective and from our advisers' perspective looks fantastic. So when you put the two pieces together, you have 70% overall response rate. You have the vast majority of patients on therapy six months and beyond. It means we believe that we have a real chance of showing that this therapy is tolerable in a way that historic chemotherapies were not tolerable and you should see an overall survival benefit in the larger, longer studies. We started the EVOKE-02 study at risk, which is identical to this cohort A. So that Phase III study is already running. So from our perspective, incredibly exciting data validates what we thought from day one when we bought Immunomedics that KEYTRUDA plus or PD-1 plus TRODELVY would be active and could become the standard of care in first-line non-small cell lung cancer. There's a lot to chew on there. So happy to dig into any of it if possible.

Mohit Bansal

No, definitely. So I mean one argument is that with Trop-2, of course, when you acquired the asset, you talked about the safety differentiation because at that point, that was in a really early stages. And it is turning out to be the difference because we saw -- we have not seen the data, but that was the press release. How important is the safety differentiation, which in the longer term, especially when you're combining with a checkpoint?

Andrew Dickinson

It's very important. I mean again -- and I think in earlier lines of therapy, it's critically important. So when you talk to KOLs and physicians, when you're talking about first-line patients, the side effect profile makes a big difference. So what Mohit is referring to is that TRODELVY side effect profile is similar to the side effect profile of traditional chemotherapies where you see diarrhea, neutropenia is the most common side effect. They tend to be manageable. They're known. The other thing I would highlight here is TRODELVY has been used in over 20,000 patients now. People forget, it's approved in three other indications. 20,000 commercial patients, I think, 3,000 or 4,000, if not more, patients in clinical studies. It has a very well-defined well-understood safety profile. We do not see ILD in our studies. We don't have to screen for it. There is a background rate of ILD. So any ILD that you see in kind of real world or studies is consistent with kind of the background rate that you'd see. We don't have to prescreen for it like others. So we believe that the side effect profile to your question is really important especially in first and probably in some of the second line as well. And as you know, we're moving aggressively from kind of the third line and later setting in breast cancer or in another indication of breast cancer, second line and later as well as bladder cancer in the earlier lines of therapy in addition to what we're doing in lung. So the vision back to your kind of Gilead 2.0 and the vision of becoming a real oncology player, we expected TRODELVY to be a pipeline in a product and a complete blockbuster, everything that we're seeing in the clinic and commercially suggests that we're on track from our perspective. And again, I think, we generally feel that it's underappreciated, it will -- people will start to understand it more as we deliver more clinical data and they see the continued strong use in the commercial setting.

Mohit Bansal

Got it. This is super helpful. So moving on to TIGIT. So the other data leak, which came on. So this was the -- like August was the month of data leak probably, right? When you saw the data, were you surprised like internally, was it within the expectations? And does it make you more or less confident about? Like where is your confidence level after the data [indiscernible]?

Andrew Dickinson

We were not surprised and this is exactly what we've expected with TIGIT and what we've been seeing. So I think you've heard from -- for those of you here for the prior session from our partners at Arcus, I think we have a completely aligned perspective. I mean our data set, the ARC-7 data, Phase II data that we've shared a number of data cuts is entirely consistent with what you saw from this other data set that was leaked granted this one is a larger Phase III data set. We believe and have said repeatedly, and this data just further validates our view that TIGIT is additive to PD-1 monotherapy or the PD-1 with no additional side effects that you're seeing of note, which is really important, especially as you think about combining it with TRODELVY, for instance, down the road. So there's no doubt in our mind based on our data set alone plus what we're seeing that there's a benefit. As I said earlier, I think the real question either from our data sets, our Phase III data sets or competitors is what is the magnitude of the benefit and then how is it going to be used, especially when you look at what's happening with the ADCs as well. But there is no doubt in our mind that TIGIT, it likely has an important role to play across a number of tumor types, but in particular, in first-line non-small cell lung cancer, which is pretty exciting.

Mohit Bansal

Got it. Super helpful. I think the other question we get a lot is like Dato has some data coming up for breast cancer later this year and then early next year for the TNBC. When you think about -- so in breast cancer specifically, where ILD may not be as big an issue. How do you think about the competitive profile of TRODELVY there? And I think I'll bring the TIGIT part also in this mix because people talk about competition. But again, if you look at the -- these are the agents which are -- which will be used for multiple across the tumor settings, right? If you look at the other drugs in that this kind of drugs are PD-1s and all, there are multiple PD-1s, which are selling a lot. So like how do you think about the competition in that context?

Andrew Dickinson

These are really big markets. These are really big opportunities. We think that we have the best-in-class molecules in both. So starting kind of with TRODELVY, again, people tend to forget, we will have been on the market for quite a long time in a number of these breast cancer indications as well as bladder cancer by the time they get on the market. Immunomedics started their studies in later-stage patients in order to accelerate clinical development. So we are now doing all the studies in earlier stage patients and expect to see, as you typically see even stronger data. I mean our data is extraordinary. If you take our triple-negative breast cancer data, for instance, it's game-changing. And you would expect, as you go into earlier lines of therapy, especially in HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, you'd see even stronger data. So we will continue to kind of move there. There's always competition, but we've been approved now for years. We have a lot of physician experience with it. I do think the side effect profile is important, as I said earlier, especially as you go into earlier lines of therapies and the fact that clinicians have so much experience with our products is important. But again like any segment that we compete in, competition is always a good thing for us and for patients and we feel really good about our position. In TIGIT, the same thing is true. I mean as you know, our TIGIT antibody is a little bit different in that it's engineered with -- we have two TIGIT antibodies, but the lead antibody that's further [indiscernible] most excited about is Fc-null engineering which we think and Arcus believe could provide a real differentiation in terms of kind of injection site reactions and safety overall, which may be important. And I think it also has to do a -- I'm not a scientist, but the depletion of T-cells in the periphery, if I remember correctly. In any event, our scientists believe that the construct that Arcus has put together really thoughtfully address kind of not only hitting the right target, but doing it in a way that will give you the best side effect profile over time. So there's a lot of competition in the TIGIT space probably more so than you see in the Trop-2 space today. That doesn't mean and I think we have one of the most differentiated molecules that have the highest potential that we'll see over time when there's a difference in the clinic.

Mohit Bansal

Great. I have 2 more questions. Those are CFO questions, but so far I'm asking the other question. So I think you have a lot going on when you think about the R&D programs you are running between HIV, TIGIT and Trop-2. So how should we think about expenses going forward and the margin profile of the company in the next few years?

Andrew Dickinson

Yes. And again, some backdrop, we needed to expand our portfolio significantly when we all joined the company. I mean, Gilead is an extraordinary company with this incredible legacy of transforming HIV, hepatitis, et cetera. But we needed to build a much bigger and broader pipeline and have a pipeline that could sustain our growth ambitions for the long run, which is exactly what we've done. So as you know, we've done over 110 business development deals over the last five-plus years. Many of those were really excited about the growth and the potential that they give us in the long run. And we've increased our R&D spending and SG&A spending as we built out into oncology. We are now only finally now at what we believe is a healthy level of spending to sustain our growth ambitions. Our R&D as a percent of revenue, SG&A as a percent of revenue are entirely consistent with the rest of the industry now when we look at benchmarks. Of course, like any company, based on the strength of our pipeline, the spending will -- can go up over time and come down. But when you kind of fast forward to where we are today, to your point, we still have one of the strongest operating margins in the industry. I don't expect that to change over time despite the fact that we've been leaning into the additional R&D and SG&A investments. We're not yet at a point specifically to your question, we still guide for -- we don't guide on the long run. But for this year, we guided for our R&D expense to grow. It grew -- it's growing a little bit more this year than we expected at the beginning of the year. That's a good thing because our studies are enrolling faster than we expected. We're at a point where we're getting closer to that equilibrium where the number of studies that are rolling off and stopping is roughly equal with the number of studies that you're starting. But we've started a lot of Phase III programs, as you know, all of which we think -- and you see this with the data that we just talked about with TIGIT and with TRODELVY have extraordinary promise for growth and the long-term strength of the business. But we're getting to the point reasonably in the foreseeable future where you kind of hit that equilibrium. And of course if we have strong lung cancer data, you'll see us build out a lung cancer commercial organization, which will be very exciting. That will be a good thing to have to do. But overall, I feel really good about where we are. And we're kind of getting to that healthy point where in some years, you're going to see expenses that will be flat or going down. Other years, they may be going up, but more on par with the rest of the industry. And then to your point on the operating margin there and EPS growth you should see extraordinary leverage in our model. We are still a very small company relative to the rest of the industry. We're about 19,000 employees globally, which is three times as large as we were when I joined seven years ago, we needed to grow, we needed to diversify. And we still have one of the strongest operating margins. So maybe the last thing I'd say here is I kind of see us moving in this year and beyond into an optimization and execution phase from a growth and diversification phase. We now have a great pipeline, great diversification, significant growth. And now we have a real opportunity over the next three or four years to not only execute clinically and commercially, but also to optimize our footprint, our spend and to make sure that the top line growth that you're seeing, which has been great. As you know, we grew kind of high single-digits, low double-digits in our base business last year. For the first half of this year, we grew, if I remember correctly, 8% in our base business. that's great, given where we were in kind of the portfolio that we had. Now we're kind of moving to a point where over time, you will see a lot of that dropping to the bottom line. So it's an exciting kind of transition period for us that we're moving into.

Mohit Bansal

Got it. So coming back to the last question here from my side. How should we think about BD at this point, especially like let's just say, like, you have a lot going on, but I mean, these are like pipeline in assets, right? I mean if one of these assets do not work out in just in case, do you have enough at this point? Or like how would you be thinking about it?

Andrew Dickinson

Yes, we do have enough at this point, but that doesn't mean that you won't do BD. I think we're at a point where we have a very good portfolio drug development is risky. Everyone knows this use magrolimab as an example, right, in terms of some of the developments there, which are not unexpected. You need to like take a portfolio approach and do enough deals with enough really promising targets and molecules that allow you to kind of have that growth knowing that you will see attrition in your pipeline over time. The good news is we're at a point where you don't need to do Immunomedics type deals to rebuild the company, right? When you think of the Kite deal and the Immunomedics deal, those are large, rare deals that that's not our focus. We will continue to do BD, but it's a lot like what you've seen us do over the last 1.5 years. It's earlier-stage deals. The part of the pipeline that we really want to fill is our late-stage preclinical, early clinical pipeline. We announced a deal a couple of weeks ago at a company called Tentarix is a good example. There were a number of deals that we did last year that fit into that. Every once in a while, we'll do a small acquisition, I would expect the CD47, the Forty Seven acquisition is a good example of that size. That I think a healthy company does from time to time. So we will continue to be active, but we really feel good about our pipeline and our programs today and what that means for long-term growth.

Mohit Bansal

On that high note, thank you, Andy. Thank you very much for joining us today.

Andrew Dickinson

Thanks for having me.

Mohit Bansal

Thank you.