Thank you, and welcome all to the audio webcast of Galapagos' full-year 2020 results. I'm Elizabeth Goodwin in investor relations, also representing a great reporting team at Galapagos. This recorded webcast is accessible via our website homepage and will be available for download and replay later today. I would like to remind everyone that we will be making forward-looking statements during today's webcast. These forward-looking statements include remarks concerning future developments of the pipeline in our company and possible changes in the industry and competitive environment. Because these forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, Galapagos' actual results may differ materially from the results expressed or implied in these statements. Today's speakers will be Onno van de Stolpe, CEO, and Bart Filius, COO and CFO. Onno will reflect on the operational highlights, and then Bart will go over the financial results and end with expected news flow for the year.
You'll see a PowerPoint presentation on screen. We estimate that their prepared remarks will take about 10 minutes, and then we'll open it up to Q&A with Bart and Onno, joined by the rest of our management board. With that, I'll now turn over to Onno. Go ahead, Onno.
Thank you, Elizabeth, and welcome everybody to this webcast. Before going into 2020 overview, let's spend a couple of minutes on the ISABELA discontinuation. Last week, the Independent Data Safety Monitoring Board contacted Galapagos with the fact that they had seen a dose-dependent mortality in the study, meaning that the arms treated with ziritaxestat showed more mortality than the placebo, and clearly that was a case of death for this program. We immediately stopped the trial and informed the markets within 24 hours after the information was brought to our attention and after we could have analyzed the data. On top of that, we also saw when the data were unblinded that the efficacy was below expectations, which was a disappointment as well. As a consequence, we have stopped all activities with ziritaxestat, all the trials and all further analysis for now. Clearly, a big disappointment.
We had worked long and hard on this program, the original 1690 program, which was a big hope for IPF patients. The community was looking forward to the outcome of this trial with a potential solution to this deadly disease. A big blow for Galapagos, but we stay firm with regard to our commitment to IPF. We have four development programs and a number of preclinical programs aimed at fibrosis. We will be back in the IPF space with more mode of actions, with more trials. We think it's an area that needs new effective treatments, and we think we have a good franchise here. It's unfortunate that this has happened, but this is the risk we're running with new mode of actions.
Galapagos goes on routes that nobody else has gone before, and that means that we accept the risk associated with the novelty and the casualty that we have seen here with ziritaxestat is part of the business we're in. We will overcome this, and we'll come back with new mode of actions for IPF. If we can go to 2020 in review, clearly, ziritaxestat discontinuation followed a couple of other disappointments over the last year. Most notably, the complete response letter that we received for filgotinib in the U.S. for rheumatoid arthritis. Our partner, Gilead, received that letter, and based on that, the analysis with the FDA decided not to launch filgotinib in the United States for RA. That doesn't say anything about other applications of filgotinib. We have a big trial going in Crohn's disease, and we have the data in ulcerative colitis.
It's not that filgotinib is dead in the U.S., but for RA, Gilead is not going to file the low dose. On top of that, we also had a failure in a new mode of action program with 1972 in osteoarthritis. In the ROCCELLA trial, we didn't see efficacy there. It was a phase II-B trial that we executed here. Unfortunate, but like with ziritaxestat, this is a part of the business we're in, that with new mode of actions, you have a high chance that programs don't reach the finish line. I used to show a graph where we saw the attrition rate from 12 targets, 12 novel targets, leading to one program in phase III, and these fallouts are part of this attrition that is the nature of the business we're in.
We also saw a number of very positive news over 2020, although they were overshadowed by the negatives. We had Jyseleca, of course, initiated on the European market. The EMA approved filgotinib Jyseleca on the market, we started commercialization in Germany and in the Netherlands, we anticipate the other countries to follow shortly here in Europe. As part of the restructuring of the filgotinib franchise, we were able to retain all European rights on filgotinib in Europe, we will be now marketing Jyseleca all over Europe under the Galapagos name. That is a big step forward for us. A firm commercial organization in Europe has always been our ambition, with Jyseleca, we can achieve that. We're also very active on the licensing end, where we got a number of new molecules, early molecules into the pipeline.
The last one that we announced, the biggest one actually was OncoArendi, which is a molecule that we are developing for fibrosis, which is phase II ready. An exciting program. We're very pleased with that license from the Polish company. We also did a divestiture. We sold Fidelta, our service division in Croatia, successfully. We think it's a win-win both for Galapagos as well as for Fidelta, because they are now part of a bigger CRO activity and where they play a very important role in the growth of that business. Within Galapagos, they were not very visible. I think it's good for Fidelta. It's also good for us to focus on our core being developing new mode of actions. We had a lot of clinical progression.
We started our Toledo program in patients, the SIK2/3 inhibitor 3970 that we started in three proof of concept trials. We started the TYK2 program in psoriasis. We had positive data of 1205 in the PINTA trial. A lot happened over the year. This is really the beginning of a whole range of clinical data that we will see over 2021 as well. That is based on this deep R&D portfolio that we have been developing for a number of years, where we're always focusing on quite a large number of validated targets that we progress through lead optimization towards preclinical candidates, and then into clinical stage programs. Here you see again the attrition as well, but also the broadness of the pipeline. We're starting at the moment from 27 targets. We currently have 10 clinical stage programs.
It's a pipeline that will deliver a number of programs into patient trials over the years to come. We remain extremely excited about this pipeline. As you can see on the next slide, it's quite broad, especially on inflammation and fibrosis. Inflammation with filgotinib being our lead program there, with the trade name Jyseleca, of course approved now for RA. It's submitted for ulcerative colitis in the EU. We are expecting full recruitment of the Crohn's disease trial this year. It remains a very important part of the Galapagos business. A whole range of other molecules with different mechanisms, the Toledo programs at SIK2/3 inhibitor. You also see lower on the list an SIK3 4399, which we're developing for inflammation. Other SIK inhibitors in there. Other JAK TYK inhibitors. We are continuing to broaden this pipeline.
The whole range of new modes of actions that are in preclinical are moving towards phase I. The same holds true for fibrosis, which is now led by 1205, a molecule that has been in the PINTA phase II-A trial. We're preparing for a phase II-B there with the target here, GPR84. You can see that we have a range of different mechanisms here in the fibrotic pipeline, including also Toledo program 4605. We remain committed to IPF and to fibrosis in general, you can see that with this broad pipeline. We have a couple of other programs outside these areas, one that we will expand further is in kidney disease. It's an area that we think is very interesting. Our first program is in the CFTR inhibitor in PCKD. That program is in phase II, hopefully we can show positive results there.
All in all, I think a pipeline that we can still be very proud about. It's progressing rapidly. We have the resources, the people, as well as the financials to move those forward, and hopefully they will deliver the data that we all are waiting for. With that, I would like to hand it over to Bart to continue with the commercial footprint. Bart, over to you.
Thank you, Onno, and good morning everyone in the states, and good afternoon in Europe listening in to this broadcast. I'd say quick few words about our efforts to build out our European commercial footprint. I'll move into the financials and the outlook. That would conclude the presenting part. Then we'll go into Q&A afterwards. On this front, we're very busy at the moment trying to roll out Jyseleca. We're building out infrastructure at Galapagos. We are in the process of negotiating with the various payers throughout Europe to get reimbursement for the product.
We had very interesting news earlier in the year that we have a positive NICE recommendation on Jyseleca, also for the moderate RA population, which is actually a novelty, not just in the class of JAK, but actually in all advanced therapies that previously these have not been available yet for patients with moderate RA and only for severe RA. We're very happy with that particular bit of news, and we look forward to launching in the U.K. in the next coming months. In Germany, the launch is on track. As you know, the German launch is run on the Gilead side. Also numbers are reported by Gilead. Now it's early days, obviously. It was first product sales in November and December. It's early days, but so far, so good. We're happy to see with the numbers that we've seen. Launch on track there.
As Onno mentioned, in the Netherlands, we're also now in the market since a couple of months, but actually in reality, mostly since 1st of January, as the contract's period starts in January in Holland. In other countries, the process is ongoing, and that includes countries such as France, Spain, Belgium, but we're also now looking at the Nordic countries, and Austria and Switzerland will follow thereafter. All in all, we are planning to complete the transition of Jyseleca from the co-promotion structure that we had with Gilead, where it was 50/50 between the two companies, to a full operation run by Galapagos by year-end. There's quite a bit of background work that needs to be done. The marketing authorization is going to be transferred. Structures are being put in place.
By year-end, we should be running this fully independently, and in the meantime, we'll make sure that we keep our eye on the ball with regard to the launch and make sure that we make a success out of the product in Europe. Moving on to the financials. As usual, I'll start with the perspective on cash. As you can see here, and as was highlighted in our press release as well, we have landed the year with a cash burn of EUR 517 million, which is in line with the guidance that we gave, which was between EUR 490 million and EUR 520 million. This includes also the cash out, for example, for the licensing efforts that we've done on the OncoArendi compound in November. What we always exclude from this cash burn are, on one hand, any cash proceeds from equity.
In this case, this is a relatively small amount of EUR 28 million due to warrant exercises. We also exclude currency translation effects, and those are meaningful in the year. The dollar has weakened significantly, about 10%, over the year. We've seen this in all of the quarters of the year already reflected in our cash balance. These are non-realized effects because this is purely representing the dollar position that we hold, which is roughly between 20% and 25% of our total cash balance. At the end of the year, we have a cash balance of about EUR 5.2 billion. On the P&L in the key financials for the year, maybe a couple of highlights there. First of all, on revenues.
We had a year of about EUR 530 million of revenues, those are largely accounting revenues related to filgotinib on one hand, where we are recognizing all milestones, license income, and portion of the Gilead's [audio distortion] for the periods of executing the development plan. In the year 2020, we have recognized a little less than EUR 230 million. We've also had royalties, about EUR 16 million. Those are mainly related to our portion of milestones received by Gilead from Eisai for their partnering in Japan. On the platform, we are recognizing in a straight line over a 10-year period, the portion allocated to the platform as part of the 2019 Gilead deal. The EUR 230 million that you see here is reflecting that straight-line revenue recognition, that will be continuing for the years to come.
As a reminder, this number is lower in revenues than previous year, I should say. In 2019, we were recognizing one shot, EUR 667 million for ziri, and that explains the down in revenue on the top line. Operating costs are up by about 35%, and the increase is really driven by three key elements. First of all, filgotinib. To a certain extent, that's mechanical because we're now paying 50% of the filgotinib costs, and that's been reflected on the revenue recognition side in revenues as well. Previously, we were paying 20% in 2019, still for half a year. There's a mechanical increase on filgotinib. Toledo is clearly an investment focus for the company, and we've seen increases in investments in Toledo program.
Finally, SG&A has gone up between the two years, reflecting the increase of the organization and specifically the rollout of our commercial efforts throughout Europe. Final comment here on the net loss. That includes a financial expense of about EUR 134 million. There's a couple of things on the line, but I'd like to highlight that more than 90% of this is non-cash. It's really the translation effect of the dollar position that I was also showing on the previous slide on cash. On outlook, on the next slide. First, maybe on the key events for the year, and then I'll say a few words about our outlook on cash burn as well. Key events on filgotinib. We file in Japan for ulcerative colitis. We also anticipate the first half of this year to get insights into the MANTA and MANTA-RAy trials.
We anticipate an approval decision for ulcerative colitis in Europe. Finally, for the second half of the year on filgotinib, we think that Gilead will have fully recruited the DIVERSITY trial, which we are running for Crohn's disease. Then other readouts, the most meaningful ones there, Toledo, there are three boxes where we think we are going to have data, psoriasis, RA, and UC. We also have, in January, disclosed a program, and we disclosed a target, the TYK2 target here, where we're running a phase I-B in psoriasis, and we anticipate data from patients there as well. Finally, 555 is a JAK1 inhibitor that we're evaluating in osteoarthritis, and we should see patient data on that program as well during the year 2021. I'll conclude on a couple words on cash burn.
We have refrained from giving a specific guidance, as you've seen in our press release of last night. In January, I think I have given some pretty clear direction as to where the cash burn would have landed, and that number would be around EUR 670 million, which is basically an increase of about EUR 50 million expenses compared to last year, and those are connected to the launch build-up in Europe. Obviously, after the news last week on ziri, we've decided to take a good look at our portfolio and our cash burn. There will be an immediate, let's say, positive impact on our cash burn from the fact that the ziri trial is stopping. Beyond that, we will be coming back to you hopefully shortly with some further details about that exercise.
The direction of the cash burn clearly is down, not up compared to the numbers that I have previously been talking about. With that, I'd like to conclude and give the floor back to Elizabeth for Q&A.
Thank you both. That does conclude the presentation portion of the audio conference call. I'd like to ask our operator, Annette, to connect us to any callers with questions for the executives. Go ahead, Annette.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. If you wish to ask a question, please press star and one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A queue. This will only take a few moments. If you wish to cancel your request, please press hash key. Once again, please press star and one if you wish to ask a question.
Operator, could you please go ahead and open the line for the first person in the queue?
Of course. One second, please. The first question comes from the line of Laerke Engkilde from JP Morgan. Please ask your question. Your line is now open.
Hello. Thanks for taking my question. Laerke Engkilde from JP Morgan. Two, please. Firstly, of course, appreciate that you're not going to give quantitative guidance on operational cash burn, but any further qualitative commentary you can make on how you see the development of sales and marketing spend in light of the discontinuation of ziritaxestat, and when you expect to have more clarity on the R&D outlook would be much appreciated. Maybe secondly, how do you plan to address the sort of potential gap in the pipeline with the Toledo program unlikely to yield an approved therapy before 2025 and beyond, assuming success? Thank you very much.
Maybe let me take the first question and then the second question, Onno, I guess you'll take that one. Sales and marketing spend evolution. First of all, important to highlight that the business case for taking on Jyseleca fully in Europe was not built on ziritaxestat. It was built on filgotinib itself. In January, we have highlighted a bit some key numbers in terms of our expectations for Jyseleca. We anticipate that we can make this EUR 500 million product in second half of this decade. We also anticipate that by then, this can be a contribution margin of approximately 50%. We've also highlighted that we think that this is going to be breakeven in 2024, so after three years of investments. That should give you some direction as to how we think our spend would evolve.
We do believe that by the end of this year, the structure is fully in place in Europe. Maybe a bit of full year effect in 2022, but that should be it. That is unchanged as a result of the ziri news. Time for when we can give you further direction. At this stage, no precise timeline, but I would speculate that latest by our Q1 reporting, which is end of April, beginning of May, we should be giving you some further clarity.
This is Onno, to address the second question regarding the gap in our pipeline. It's clear that with ziri out of there, we have a gap between the commercial product, Jyseleca, and our phase II programs, and we would like to fill that. We will be active on the in-licensing M&A activity this year to see if we can find a program likely in the fibrosis inflammation area to fill that gap. I think there are opportunities out there. We have an interesting alliance, of course, with Gilead there, where Gilead has an option to take on the non-European rights. Even for an in-license program, they will get the option to take the non-European rights. We have a solid partner there to market the product when it's in license. I think we are a good party to talk to.
We're already quite active to analyze the opportunities and hope to find an attractive molecule. With that said, it's clearly that we will remain focused on new mode of actions, novel targets. That is also criteria for any program that we will in-license.
Thank you.
Our next question comes from Laura Sutcliffe from UBS. Go ahead, Laura, your line should be open.
Hello. Thank you. Can I start with a broad question, please? Could you maybe just comment on whether in aggregate you think the pipeline as it stands has an acceptable commercial and clinical risk profile? Something a bit more specific. On ziritaxestat, do you have any idea why you saw what you saw on safety? I appreciate it's early days, but I was just wondering if you had learned anything so far that you could apply elsewhere. Maybe if I can just sneak a third one in. On the MANGROVE trial, do you think you will get any fileable data from that study? Thank you.
Yeah. Let me start with the broad question, and then Walid can follow up with the ziri question. Yes, we believe the pipeline has the right balance from a scientific point of view, risk point of view, clinical point of view as well as commercial. If you look at it, we think Toledo has great potential. We also have programs with smaller potential indications in there. It, of course, remains all a question of getting the product through these clinical trials to the patients and with every new mode of action. That is a more risky business than if you go for a me-too product. Ultimately, we strongly believe that the innovation is what should drive our industry, and that we, especially as biotech companies, should focus on getting these new mode of actions to patients.
We are in the situation, the lucky or the good situation, that we have enough cash to support these programs. We can actually support a whole range of parallel phase II and even phase III. I think we will come back with a strong phase III pipeline over the coming years. We anticipate that the number of programs will actually reach the patient there. Walid, do you want to continue?
Thank you, Onno. Good morning. Good afternoon, everyone. Regarding ziri, yeah, it's a very good question. We have looked at the data. It's difficult to see a very clear signal right now that points to give us sort of, as you said, a way forward to figure out how we can de-risk other programs. What we have observed is that this increase in mortality started manifesting itself when subjects have been in the trial for at least six or nine months. It didn't come until late. This is not due to any new tox signals, like, for example, a liver signal or anything else, or cardiovascular signal. If we look at the mortality at the high level, it does seem it's due to exacerbation of IPF, actually, which is a bit surprising.
At this point, we need to look further into the data, look into the narrative, and it's a bit early days. It's nothing that popped up that has linked to a mechanism of action that we could explain as of today or any tox finding that we've seen in our preclinical tox package. We've looked at that in a lot of details, of course, as soon as we got these data. With that, I'll turn it over to Piet.
Thank you, Walid. Thanks for the question on the MANGROVE data. MANGROVE is in phase II study in ADPKD patients where we dose 60 patients. It's a placebo-controlled study. This is the first step. After this study, if we detect a good signal, we will need to do other studies at dose range and then a late study. We are not putting forward any filing data yet. Thank you.
All right. Our next question comes from Peter Welford of Jefferies. Go ahead, Peter.
Hi. I hope you can hear me. I've got three questions. Firstly, it's just, I guess, a bigger sort of picture question for Onno in the sense of or maybe for Walid, in the sense that, in hindsight, I guess, from a strategy perspective, has this changed the attitude of Galapagos towards sort of fast tracking, I guess, some development programs? I think there's been a lot of debates about discussions you have with FDA and the decision to move straight into ISABELA. I get curious internally whether you've sort of reevaluated from a risk perspective what decisions you're willing to make, or do you think this is just, if you like, unfortunate part of clinical development? Secondly then, I guess a technical question for Bart, just on the filgotinib share, the EUR 16.2 million.
Am I right in saying that's recognized in the other income part, if you like, of your revenue and not in the other, the revenue part? I'm just trying from an accounting perspective, just trying to understand where that EUR 16.2 million has been recognized. Thirdly, just thinking about the European strategy and sort of cash burn. Is it possible for you to give us the rough cash burn or spend of ziritaxestat, I can't pronounce that word, in 2022? I guess just presumably from a back of the envelope, it would help us at least as a starting point to have a rough idea, I guess, of how much ISABELA was cash burn during 2020 to think about for 2021. Thank you.
Yeah, Peter, I'll start this. It's Onno. The good news of the failure is that you don't have to pronounce ziri very often anymore. That's a silver lining. Yeah. Did it change our appetite for risk, the fast-tracking? Clearly we're going to review the various gating events and review also what we did with ziri as well as what we have done with 1972. I think one of the things, maybe we have said in an interview that we maybe have been a little bit naive, optimistic, thinking that we could target these kind of big diseases like OA, relatively simple. We had our molecule, we had good preclinical data, exciting phase I-B data in healthy volunteers. Went into a large phase II with one year treatment, 900 patients, we didn't see an effect.
Now with ziri getting this stock signal and a disappointing efficacy signal, we need to rethink how we move progress forward. On the other hand, as I said at my start of the call today, this is part of new mode of action development, and we will face more disappointments in the future. It's just that we need, once in a while, a success that brings us to the patient. We also don't want to throw away the baby with the bath water here. I think our innovative approach and rapid approach going with small effective phase IIs is not something to immediately abandon. I think we might fine-tune it somewhat to give us more certainty or at least less risky steps forward going from here. Maybe Walid, you want to comment on that as well from a clinical point, and then we'll turn it over to Bart.
Thank you, Onno. I just want to say a couple of words on the ziri. At the time when we got the FLORA data, we really debated this at length, we didn't go in with eyes closed. We went in with eyes wide open. We knew that we could take a path where we can do a phase II-B study, which would be long and costly and delay the program, or take a more aggressive approach and go straight into the ISABELA program, which we ended up going. What we did also is we put a lot of stopgap measures. We put the data monitoring committee that meets. It's a very robust committee that meets relatively frequently for a study like this to check on the safety, but also on the efficacy on an ongoing basis. Also we added the futility.
Those are stopgap measures that will protect the patient and that will protect us against excessive investment. I like to say that actually this happened. The study stopped probably at about 50% cost of the whole program from a clinical perspective. We knew from the beginning, it is going to be higher than if we had done a phase II-B, but that incremental investment could have gotten us to the patients ultimately two and a half years earlier. At the time we debated that and we knew we're taking a risk, but we thought that the incremental investment is worth that two and a half years to bring to patients, which is an unmet medical need that is huge in this indication. Of course, had we succeeded, we would've been heroes. Now retrospectively, we're saying, okay, well maybe we shouldn't have done that.
I think as Onno said, we'll have to take a look and see how we better balance the composition of our portfolio to have maybe a certain limited amount of programs like IPF, where you will have to invest a large time and resource and money until you get the initial result. Maybe other areas where you can have an early readout, psoriasis, RA, psoriatic arthritis, and IBD. That would be also another way for us to balance the risk of our clinical portfolio. Of course, also Onno mentioned that very clearly that we will be taking a critical look at our gating events. How much data do we need to have to take the next step? That's really good housekeeping on our part and a natural consequence of the disappointments that we've seen in our pipeline recently.
We'll be able to guide more on that once we have concluded our assessment. Thank you. Pass it on to Bart now.
Thanks, Walid. Yeah, Peter, your two questions filgotinib royalties, they are recorded in revenue, so they're not in our income, they're recorded in revenues. In other income, you'll find things like tax incentives and grants and stuff like that. It's in revenues. The second question, cash burn ziri in 2020. We spent in 2020 about EUR 55 million on ziritaxestat. That's a net number, taking into account that we are sharing those costs with Gilead. Your question obviously is what can you expect then in terms of 2021, let's say immediate reduction as a result of the ziri stop. I would say it's in the vicinity of about EUR 40 million, Peter. That's what I can tell you in terms of immediate consequences of the ziri stopping in 2021.
If I could just follow up just on the filgotinib royalties. I guess just a little bit confused when I do the math because I think previously, I think you've booked sort of a reimbursement income, I think in the sort of first half of the year of about EUR 6 million, EUR 7 million or something like that. I guess, it looks as though, presumably there was no reimbursement or anything like that in the second half of the year or something. Am I missing something?
Now the royalty, if you're talking about the royalties, the EUR 16 million, that is all booked. That's all part of the second half of the year. It's actually all Q4. It's connected to the Eisai deal that Gilead has closed with Japan. There have been fluctuations between the quarters on filgotinib revenue recognition, as a result of changes to our development plan, changes to the structure, that followed the transfer of some of these trials in Q4 to us. There's a bit of moving parts there. The net number that you've seen on the slides is what we recognize for filgo, and the EUR 16 million is what's, let's say, truly royalties in 2020.
Got it. Thank you.
Right. Our next question comes from Brian Abrahams of RBC. Go ahead, Brian.
Hey, guys. Thanks so much for taking my questions. Two from me. I guess, first off, what do you need to provide to Europe on MANTA and MANTA-RAy, and how clear are you as to what they'll be looking for from the interim blinded data to maintain the label and/or authorization of Jyseleca? Secondly, just as you think about future cash burn following the ziri setback, I'm just curious, sort of bigger picture, is your predilection to, I guess, reprioritize and use the cash you would have otherwise spent on ziri to invest further in other assets, or should we think about more, I guess, reduced spend on just, I guess, spend decelerating overall to preserve capital because you won't have those future revenues from the late-stage asset? Thanks.
Thank you, Brian. This is Walid. I'll take the first question on MANTA. MANTA and MANTA-RAy, those are both two parts of one study. As you guys might know from what's in the public domain, we look at a number of endpoints there. The primary endpoint is more than 50% reduction in sperm concentration, but also we look at motility, we look at morphology, we looked at hormone levels and so on and so forth. Those, I think, the interpretation of this is going to be difficult from the perspective of a primary endpoint. Also, the study is not powered for statistical significance on the primary endpoint because health authorities have said that they will look at the totality of the data because there's no clear black and white way to interpret the data.
Of course, unless the compound is toxic and cause a lot of things, then it becomes very clear and that we will have to report immediately. The data will be the totality of the data. There's no clear definition of what would be an acceptable deviation and an imbalance that you would see in one but not the other. The expectation from the FDA is that we maintain those studies blinded until we finish the monitoring phase. However, we have obligations to the European authority and patients as well, and Japan, where we are marketing Jyseleca, to once we have the data from the 26-week, that we present these data to these health authorities. As such, we agree to the FDA.
There's going to be a small unblinded team that will have access to those data in order to prepare the documents that will be needed to provide to the health authorities in Europe and Japan so that we can adjust the label accordingly and be able to adequately inform the prescribers and the patients.
Brian. I'll take the other question, Brian, on the cash burn. We are not going to reallocate the ziri spend to other assets. The idea is we need to right size our total expenses for the year 2021. The number will end up lower than the number that I was guiding for in January, including the EUR 40 million that I just mentioned on the ziri savings, including potentially a bit more.
That's really helpful. Thank you very much.
Great. The next question comes from Matthew Harrison at Morgan Stanley. Go ahead, Matthew.
Hi. This is Thomas for Matthew. For TYK2, do you think this year's data can demonstrate any difference over the profile of the leading TYK2? Thank you.
Thank you, Thomas. Did I understand you correctly, you meant the psoriasis study? Is that what you said? I didn't hear you very well.
The TYK2 inhibitor?
Right, what kind of data were you talking about?
Oh, the psoriasis. Yes.
Yes. That is a relatively small study. I think directionally, it will tell us whether we are active. I don't think it will give you a precision to what degree you can compare with competitors where you have much more advanced data. I think directionally it will give you an idea, and that's what we're looking for. The study is a 30-patient study, 20 on active, with 10 on each dose. We're taking two doses in that study, and 10 on placebo. Its duration is four weeks as well because it's a phase I-B. Directionally, we're going to have an idea, but to be able to have the precision with which to compare against the more advanced compounds, I think it would be a bit more difficult.
Got it. Thanks.
Okay. Now our next question comes from Rushee Jolly at Bernstein. Go ahead, Rushee.
Hi. Rushee Jolly, Bernstein. Thanks for taking my questions. Two, please. Firstly, I get the follow-on question on psoriasis. I know the data's early and you also have a Toledo asset that's entering psoriasis, but I wanted to ask maybe, kind of longer-term perspective on where you see the bar for success here and how Galapagos can differentiate themselves. The reason I'm asking is psoriasis is incredibly competitive as it is, but we could also expect to see another IL-17A on market later this year that perhaps sets a new bar in terms of efficacy. Secondly, I wanted to ask maybe a bigger picture question on management's view of value of the company today.
You have a lot of cash on balance sheet, but perhaps you could comment on maybe the balance of cash burn and the requirement to invest in the pipeline, and perhaps your view of really what the current pipeline and platform represent from a valuation perspective. Thank you.
Okay. Let me take the first one. The reason we're doing the psoriasis study is to have a quick assessment in a phase I setting, which this indication lends itself to generate some initial clinical data to see whether we have a path forward. To be able to truly see whether we are competitive, our plan is to go into a psoriatic arthritis study, which is more of the indication that fits better with our outlook. It's a fair question, and I think the point that where we're coming from, I want to make two points. One is that we need to generate enough data with this asset, which so far looks very good. We want to generate more data with this asset so that we can ascertain, is this a competitive asset to continue to push forward for later-stage development or not?
Number two, psoriasis right now is not a primary indication for us. It's an initial study to tell us whether we're on the right path. Once we do a fuller evaluation and we advance forward, if the competitors are on the market with psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis, it becomes an easy way to broaden into psoriasis. All of that will be part of our assessment with commercial and positioning to see whether we have a way forward or not. It's still a bit too early to tell.
The initial data will tell us directionally whether we're heading there, and then the next question is it worth investing in a phase II-B psoriatic arthritis study so then you can have much better precision with which you can compare to the competitors and see whether you have a differentiated drug there or not to be worthwhile investing further into.
Thanks.
Yeah, let me say a few words then on the second question, Rushee. I'm sure you hold on the math. I think our total cash balance is sort of equal to about EUR 79 a share. Currently, in terms of value that we are getting in the street, we are not getting value for cash let alone, we're not getting any value for our platform. We're not getting any value reflected for our pipeline that Onno was showing earlier. That includes, if I've got the number right, about 10 clinical-stage compounds or compounds in development. It doesn't include any value for Jyseleca either, which we think definitely has a value in Europe and abroad. That's what I can say. It's not up to me to determine what the value appreciation is of shareholders in the company, but we do feel that there's a disconnect currently.
In terms of cash burn, as I highlighted, EUR 5.2 billion on the balance sheet is reflected. If you look at the cash burn plans that we said we were having, that's easily enough to live out the Gilead collaboration period until the end of the decade. Obviously, that's a fantastic opportunity for us as a company to demonstrate that we can create value scientifically and that we can bring compounds to later stages and to the market. We see we have opportunities over our existing portfolio of bringing other compounds to the finish line as well in that period. Definitely we should be able to create value based on that cash rather than just see it as a spend on an annual basis. Yeah, let me conclude with that.
We think that there is the technology, the clinical compounds, the marketed compounds, and the firepower finally for business development as well that should be part of the value of Galapagos.
Thank you. Very helpful.
Now we take a question from Phil Nadeau at Cowen. Go ahead, Phil.
Morning. Thanks for taking my questions. Two from me also. First is on commercial. Curious to hear a bit more about your marketing message for Jyseleca in Europe. How are you differentiating it versus the other JAKs? Along those lines, do you think the recent data from Xeljanz basically failed study helps you or does that hurt the JAK class? That's question one. Question two is just on the accounting. We are amortizing upfronts on the filgotinib payments over four to five years post 2019. Does the amount that we should be amortizing our model, does that change post the December agreement and the cash payments that you have coming up this year and next year? Thanks.
Yeah. This is Michele here, Phil. Take the first part of your question, so on the messaging. The messaging is leveraging the strength of the balance we have with the efficacy demonstrated with Jyseleca across different line of treatment, so the bio-naive and the Bio-IR, and the actually tolerability and safety data, that also differentiated our profile in the development programs. This is the balance that we actually are bringing to physicians. The feedback that we're getting from Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, so the countries where we have the promotion ongoing, is really comforting and reflecting that. That's really coming back also from the market researches, the advisory boards that really reflect the strength of this profile.
This, as Bart indicated in the beginning, also reflect in the first indicators we get on the shares on the in-play market, in the first weeks and months of promotion and sales there. On the impact of the sales and data, that of course is a double-edged sword, if you want. On one end, it strengthens the value of our proposition because of course it gives more attention to the safety data we have in our profile. Of course, on the other end, it creates a reflection from physicians about JAK s, which we know already was there in terms of the safety from the first generation of JAK, so Xeljanz and Olumiant. Again, on that, we see reflected that physicians appreciate the second generation, so, the JAK1 preferential, and we see an opportunity there if this is reflected.
That's helpful. Thank you.
Bart-
The second question was on.
Yeah.
Yeah, the revenue recognition. Thanks.
The amortization of the filgo upfront.
Sorry, Phil.
After the change after the December agreement.
I was disconnected from the line for a second. Can you just do it one more time for me, the question?
Right. After the Q3 renegotiation of the deal with Gilead, I believe we had about EUR 640 million in filgotinib upfront payments to amortize over four to five years in our model. I am curious if that number has changed now post the December reorganization of the deal with Gilead and the payments that you expect to receive in 2021 or 2022. Is there less filgotinib upfront to amortize now over the next few years that we should take out of our model?
Yeah. No, it's about EUR 800 million, at the end of the year, reflected in our deferred revenues. That's going to be recognized over the next couple of years. It's up because basically the extra payments that were negotiated as part of the agreements in Q4 are also partially put into the balance sheet and be recognized as development costs will be incurred over the next couple of years. It's the same period going forward, let's say another three to four years, and EUR 800 million, approximately a bit more than EUR 800 million, and we'll have details in the annual reports, to be recognized over that period.
Got it. That is very helpful. Thank you.
Okay. Our next question comes from Jason McCarthy of the Maxim Group. Go ahead, Jason.
Hi, this is Michael Okunewitch on the line for Jason. Thanks for taking the question. One thing I'd like to ask, considering M&A seems to be, or in-licensing as well, seems to be a priority for 2021, and likely on the later stage of things. How does that work with and how do you take into account the existing agreement with Gilead? Would they have an option on in-license programs? Do you have to factor that into the price you're willing to pay, considering they can in-license for EUR 150 million?
Good question. This is Onno. Yeah, exactly. Gilead has an option on everything we in-license. If we do it through an M&A or through a product license. They have an opt-in for the non-European rights for a price of EUR 150 million, which of course has consequences of what Galapagos can do on its own regarding in-licenses. If not, we need to get Gilead at the table as well, which clearly is a possibility. Gilead, as you know, is very active in in-licensing and M&A activities. We could do a transaction where we get the rights for Europe and Gilead would get the rights outside Europe, and then we jointly do the further clinical development as in the current alliance. That's a possibility.
Not making it easier, of course, three people at the table, but our relationship with Gilead is such that I think it's a very workable way forward.
Thank you. Then if you don't mind, I just want to ask one thing on IPF, specifically if 1205 and the chitinase have the same combination potential as you had with ziri, considering both those assets target the macrophage aspect of immune response.
Piet, would you like to take this?
I can take it.
Thank you.
From mechanism point of view, both the chitinase and 84 can be combined with other mechanisms of actions. What we've seen in PINTA, what we studied is that there was a negative PK interaction between 1205 and nintedanib. Negative, I mean, where we saw more of toxicity. In that sense, if we talk about the combo potential later of those two assets, we'll need to find the exact dosing for 1205 with nintedanib, and that might be different from the dose we could give on top of pirfenidone. From a mechanism point of view, indeed, you can combine it with either pirfenidone or nintedanib. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
All right. Thank you. Our next question comes from Evan Seigerman from Credit Suisse. Go ahead, Evan.
Hi, guys. Thank you for taking the question. I know this has been touched on before, current valuation suggests a negative enterprise value could imply a number of things. One being that your spend is not generating the value, essentially. I guess, what is your plan to really reverse this trend and convince the market that the spend and investment you're engaging with the portfolio on the pipeline is going to create value for shareholders? Thank you.
It will come from the programs that we have, plus of course, the performance of Jyseleca in the market. We got to regain the confidence of the investors. We've lost that due to the CRL, due to 1972 and now the ISABELA trial. It's a normal reaction that when things fail, people turn their back on the whole technology and the company. We are strong believers that we have everything in-house to bring new mode of actions to patients. We have a very exciting pipeline, as I just showed you earlier. We have to deliver on that pipeline. We need to get programs through the various trials into phase III into the patients. If we can deliver that, I'm sure the investors will come back and the excitement will regain traction here around Galapagos.
For now, we need to focus on what we're good at, and that is bringing these new mode of actions through clinical development. We're going to look very closely, as already was discussed, about our processes, our gating events, our programs as well. We'll report to market when we have done that analysis on what we're going to do for the years to come.
Okay, great. Thank you.
Our next question comes from Graig Suvannavejh from Goldman Sachs. Go ahead, Graig.
Thanks, Elizabeth. I think you've taken my questions. I've got two, please. My first just revisiting the current cash balance of the EUR 5 billion and the topic of in-licensing and M&A. Are there particular themes that you can comment on and whether it is more asset specific, and is it indeed looking for something to fill in the gap in the late-stage pipeline, or is it more around technologies? I know in the past, the company has talked about interests in perhaps RNA-based therapeutics or even protein degraders. Just wanted to visit that theme. Secondly, the company's currently focused on inflammation and fibrosis, and I think there's a view that inflammation's increasingly more competitive. Fibrosis is a tough space generally.
I was wondering if the company has any interest in looking beyond inflammation and fibrosis, and if there was, whether that would have to contemplate a conversation with Gilead to make sure there was synergy there. Thank you very much for my question.
Onno. We might have lost Onno. Let me give you a shot at that, Graig. First of all, in terms of BD efforts, I would say there's indeed still the need to look at the technology side. We've done quite a few in-licensing deals over the last 12 months, as well as some smaller technology-based deals as well. We will continue that effort because I think it's good in terms of let's say rejuvenating the technology of our platform going forward. I think frankly, in terms of size, that's going to be probably smaller. I think when we are referring to larger transactions on BD, we're really talking more about later-stage assets or more meaningful numbers as well in terms of cash spend there on. It doesn't preclude us from doing other efforts as well on the BD front.
With regard to the therapy area choices, it's clear inflammation and fibrosis are committed areas. We've also announced last year that kidney is an area that we're looking for, that is confirmed. Actually, if we want to make changes on those, there is no need for us to talk with Gilead about it. It's really up to us to determine where our strengths are and where our focus should be. That's not subject to a discussion with our colleagues from Gilead.
All right. If I could just follow up for clarification just on M&A. Did you mean to imply that you would prefer to do smaller deals versus a larger deal? I guess if you are contemplating "larger deals," is there a size of a transaction that you think is appropriate for the profile of Galapagos? Thank you.
Yeah. I think it would be a bit too early to give specifics about exact sizes. Clearly, we're talking about something else than the EUR 25 million that we were talking with OncoArendi last year. That's what I would call the smaller deals that we would continue to be interested in to look at to refresh our earlier pipeline. The BD that we're talking about here is clearly of larger scale. We'll take that on as our analysis and evaluations progress.
Okay. Thank you. That is all we have time for today on the call. Please reach out to the IR team if you still have questions. Our next financial results call will be at the Q1 results on the 7th of May. Thanks for participating today. Goodbye