43rd Annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference 2025

Jan 15, 2025

Slides

Summary

The growth outlook is supported by five launch-phase products, improved U.S. BIMZELX access for 2025 and positive feedback across markets. Pipeline priorities include further study of bepranemab subgroups and a second lupus Phase III now underway.

Welcome to Wednesday at the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference. I'm Richard Vosser, European Pharma Analyst with J.P. Morgan. It's my great pleasure to introduce the CEO of UCB, Jean-Christophe Tellier. Before I hand over to Jean-Christophe, I just remind you that we will take questions after Jean-Christophe's presentation, so you can either put up your hand, wait for a microphone, or you can submit questions through the portal. Jean-Christophe, welcome to the conference. Thank you, Richard. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for being here, and thank you for your interest into the company. It's a pleasure to be back here and share with you progress that we have made with the company and where do we stand at the beginning of 2025. After the classical slide on the disclaimer, maybe for some of you who don't know fully yet UCB, a quick reminder of who we are. We are a company almost 100 years old, created in 1928 by the Janssen family. Since then, we have been focusing more and more on biopharmaceuticals and on biotech specialty. We have, today, more than 9,000 people in the company, and we are impacting more than 3.2 million people. There are two messages that I would like you to keep in mind at the beginning of this presentation. One is the fact that for a company our size, the strategy always has been to focus on innovation and to make sure that we are able to have an impact on life of patients through the product that we are able to discover, develop, and commercialize. That is the reason why you can see on the top line, right-hand side of the slide, that we always have invested more than the average of our industry in R&D. The reason why we are doing that, and the reason why we are focusing on research, is because it's one of the criteria by which, in a sense, size is not equivalent to success. For a company our size, it's important to realize that we want to focus where quality make a difference more than quantity. The differentiated innovations play an important role for us. We have planned for 2024, and we will publish the full year result later in February, but the latest update of our guidelines for 2024 was projected sales around EUR 6 billion, with a profitability between 23% and 24.5%. On the left side of the slide, I think there is a quite quick summary of what do we mean by patient value. Actually, the point is relatively simple, right? If you are focusing on innovation, you want to better connect the patient to the science, because you want the science to then be translated into a differentiated medicine. Value for patients start, of course, with the ability to make product available for the society and for the market that make a difference for this patient's life. You would say the majority of pharma company, it's already a very good objective and a good goal. We feel that we need to go a little bit further, because if the product that we are able to put on the market does not create a good experience for the patient, then we may not have achieved our goal. If the patients who need our product in order to be treated do not have access to our drugs, we may not have achieved our goal. On top of discovering, delivering, commercializing differentiated medicine, these notions of full value for the patient, meaning being able for the patient to get access and to get the best possible experience so they can have the life that they want. Last but not least, we want to be successful in the long term, the sustainability areas. We are very pleased to be among few biopharma company to have a validated net-zero target by the Science Based Targets initiative, and we are the first company of the BEL20 to have been able to reach this objective. The Patient Value Strategy started 10 years ago, and you see here the last journey of the last 10 years, starting with a phase where we wanted to solidify the platform, that we named Grow and Prepare. Then we move to the phase where we wanted to accelerate and expand, meaning gaining more patients populations and producing data that would be compelling for the society and for the different stakeholders. In the last phase, which was Breakthrough and Lead, that we are in the end of this phase right now, transforming the work that has been done in order to really reach the impact that we can have today. On the right-hand side, you start to see some of the element to illustrate these achievements, the 25 approvals and launches in the last 24 months. The R&D productivity, we had 12 consecutive phase III positive in the last four years, and making sure that, in a sense, we can deliver this differentiation to the patient. Certain illustrations of what differentiations means. We are starting a period of growth with a decade-plus of growth, with five products that are in a launching phase right now. Each of them has a unique value proposition. If I start with BIMZELX, which is today at the heart of our growth and with a lot of attention. BIMZELX is the first and only monoclonal antibody that target at the same time IL-17A and IL-17F. It's not a bispecific per se from a construct, from an antibody engineering. It is one antibody who at the same time has the same affinity for both target, which is unique in the system. Certain product EVENITY for fragility fracture, we are the only anti-sclerostin inhibitors. We are the only product available on the market with our partner Amgen, who is able to reduce the fracture rate by 50% for fragility fracture and who rebuild bone. As you all know, we have reached our peak bone at 25 years old, and the only objective, opportunity, and possibility after 25 years is to lose bone. With life extension, with risk of additional fracture, the only possibility to rebuild bone is a 1-year treatment with EVENITY. FINTEPLA is a product that we have acquired from Zogenix in Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. It is a unique value proposition in particular for Dravet syndrome. It is now the base of the treatment and the recommendation. Then we have two products in gMG, RYSTIGGO, an anti-FcRn, and ZILBRYSQ, an anti-C5. For our anti-FcRn, we have the indications in both patient populations, the MuSK and the anti-acetylcholine receptor population. Then for ZILBRYSQ, we are the only one anti-C5 with a daily injection, which ensures a control of the inflammations every day. You can see that we are entering into this period of growth for the company with product which have unique value propositions. On the right-hand side, you can see the rest of the pipeline. We have five phase II where we are waiting for some results, four phase III, and one submission ready. The platform is very solid. We have growth for the near future, and we have promising pipelines coming in. Two product I just wanted to highlight, bepranemab is an anti-tau antibody, where we have presented the data at the end of last year when we think that we have a signal in a subpopulation of patient suffering from Alzheimer's disease. Dapirolizumab pegol is an anti-CD40 ligand that we have with our partner Biogen, where we had positive phase III study in lupus. It is only the third time in history of lupus that a positive phase III has been achieved. When you look at the last 10 years or so, and when we are mentioning that we are starting a period of growth, I wanted also to share with you that we are starting this period of growth with a very solid and successful foundation. If you look at the last 9 years as presented here, in terms of annual revenue, in terms of adjusted EBITDA, or in terms of evolutions of the market cap, you can see the trend and the dynamism of the company right now. I want to make a specific focus on BIMZELX first because we have some recent news that I wanted to share with you. Particularly at the beginning of the year for 2025 in the U.S., this notion of access and contracting with PBMs is an important one. Maybe I would like to take the time to help you to go through this slide. I am sure you are interested on the right-hand side, but I would like you to focus on the left-hand side for a few minutes, if you do not mind. You see here the evolution of the weekly prescriptions of BIMZELX in the psoriasis marketplace. You can see all of our different competitors and the bold line is the line with BIMZELX. You can see that since the beginning, since day 1, actually, we have been able to demonstrate the value of the product for the prescribers and for the patients. Allow me to share with you two anecdotes, which has been quite compelling for me, at least. First, it is the first asset that has been launched with three comparative trial versus standard of care demonstrating superiority. We have been able to start to launch these products and to enter into the marketplace with three superior study versus standard of care. What you see here is not an outcome of chance. It is the result of the work that has been done before. To the power of the results in psoriasis, you need to look at it with three lenses. There is one, which is the speed of onset of action. On these standpoints, the product has been able to be remarkably quick. We have patients coming back to the physicians after just one dose who have been resistant to a lot of different treatment, and suddenly, psoriasis have disappeared. Two is the depth of the response. Six patients out of 10 do not have any plaque of psoriasis on their skin, which is significantly above anybody else. For a patient, you may argue that 90% is good enough, and 100% is better, yes, but is it significant? Well, it is. It is for two reason. First reason, you never know when the next plaque of psoriasis will happen. When you suffer from this disease, you never know what will be your ability to do certain activities, social life, professional life, as long as you have a risk to have some plaque. Having 100% of the skin clear means that you trust your product enough, then you can have a normal life. A normal life is what we achieve to get for this patient population. Three is the durability. We have four years now of follow-up open label extension with clinical studies where we can demonstrate the sustainability of the results. We knew we had this product in our hands, and the second element which is compelling is that not just that the physician told us during the clinical study, it is not really a double blind because we know quickly what is the group with the active treatment. But we have physicians that also come back to us and say, "I have never seen that before." My message here is that we have here a product that can deliver a significant value for the patient. As I said, patients' value means unique clinical outcome, but it also means experience for the patient, and it means also access. This is where I would like to move to the right-hand side of the slide. You know how difficult it is to achieve access in the U.S., and particularly when you are launching a new product with a relatively heavy competition. We are really pleased with what we have been able to achieve for 2025. You can see on the left side of the slide, the before 2025, which is what we had until December 2024, where for two out of three PBMs, major PBMs in psoriasis, we get a double-step edit, meaning that the patient needed to get at least two biologics before being able to be covered for BIMZELX, and one was excluded. If you move to the right-hand side for the psoriasis, now we have no exclusion anymore. We are in one first line for one PBMs and one single-step edit. When I told you that in terms of patient value, our objective was making sure that the patients who need the product could have access to the drug. This is what we mean by evolutions of this access. We are very pleased with this evolution. Of course, it's an ability to make sure that we can continue to make it simple for the physician, for the patients to gain access. Then on top of the psoriasis, you can see that we have also the rheumatological indications that what you see with PsA, AS, and non-radiographic axSpA. So for the non-expert is psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and non-radiographic axSpA. You see where we were before, 2 excluded, 1 double-step, and we moved to double-step for 2 and single-step for 1. It will be a year where we can really reach the scale, where we can be able to provide the best possible solution for the patient at scale with an easy access for the majority of them. Now, quickly, I would like to move to the other growth drivers that we have. RYSTIGGO and ZILBRYSQ could have been launched more or less at the same period of time last year. We are now in more than 20 countries for these 2 products. As I mentioned, each of them have a specificity in terms of profile and in terms of patient profile and type. What we have seen from the first feedback of this patients population is that it's really a very good and significant advantage to get different mechanism of action for treatment of these patients. Some of these patients like to get a continuous control, the self-medication. Some of them prefer maybe a more classical approach. That's what we can offer with these 2 class. On top of that, it's 2 different mechanism of actions. One is really an anti-complement acting at the heart of inflammation. The other is an anti-FcRn, which is accelerating the cleaning of the circulation for the high level of IgG. EVENITY, I mentioned it. The unique product and unique value proposition for the patients suffering from risk fracture. Here the limit is the fact that sometimes people don't feel that they need to be treated because fragility fracture is not perceived as a disease. But we still have a lot of patients who are not treated, and that's the only limit of this product. FINTEPLA is now approved U.S., Europe, and Japan, and we have 17 countries actually available. As you can see, a strong foundation, a strong platform, a focus on research and innovation, and a decade of growth ahead of us. Moving forward, our objective is really to continue to elevate the lives of people through our medicine with these 3 components. A first component, which is an ability to go beyond the symptoms and to go at the heart of the disease, at the heart of the inflammation, to have a chance to potentially modify the evolution of the disease. For a company like us focusing on chronic disease, the ability to modify the evolution of the disease, it's an objective that can help the patient to have the life that they want. Two, we need to make sure that we produce benefit and data who are compelling for the different stakeholders. It's not sufficient to have a statistical difference if it's not clinically meaningful. It's not sufficient to be clinically meaningful if it doesn't mean value for the society and for the payers and for the other stakeholders. By doing that, we need to embrace and to engage the different stakeholders all together. That the third point, we need to really make sure that we can create value for the society as a whole, and not just bringing a product on behalf of other part of society. That three components, ability to have a significant impact on the patient, the benefit which are meaningful for society, and an ability to work together is, I feel, the recipe for us as for others to be successful in the long term. This will help us to continue to deliver on a decade plus of growth. You will see the portfolio. You have seen the differentiation of the portfolio. You have seen the first data points. We are very confident that 2025 will continue to illustrate the success of the strategies of the company that have been in place for the last 10 years and prepare the next phase of growth ahead of us. With that, I would like to thank you very much, and then we are moving for the question, I guess. Thank you. Fantastic. Thanks, Jean-Christophe Tellier. Are there any questions in the room? Maybe I'll start. You touched on the strength of the new reimbursement. Yeah around BIMZELX, but you didn't touch on the new indication that you also have at the end of last year. Yeah in terms of HS, hidradenitis suppurativa. Maybe you could give us indications of how you see that uptake in 2025. Thank you, Richard, for the question. We are in a very unique position, in the sense that we have achieved psoriasis indication, the first indication, in end of 2023. Then at the end of 2024, we got the new indications in rheumatology and in HS very quickly. We are now in a phase of accelerating of the growth and the launches for each of these indication. While classically you have new indications in a sequence, right? You start with one, and then after a couple of years, you have another one, and then another one. We are in this phase of adding all of that together. You have seen in the access, as Richard, you mentioned, that we have contracting now for the dermatology for psoriasis and for the rheumatological indication. HS arrived later in the year. It was a couple of months later. We didn't get this contracting with HS, so it will be for the contracting next year, and we will get that this year. HS is a very HS, sorry, the summary of what you say No hidradenitis suppurativa, which is almost impossible to pronounce. HS is much easier. HS is a very severe disease for which the offering was really poor. It's patients who are really in a very difficult situation. Very often they had to go to surgery. They have a lot of skin diseases. They have abscesses. They have tunnels. They have leakage that cannot be treated by anything, basically. I think that the new offering and the biology demonstrates the value of the IL-17 and the value of the IL-17F in particularly on top of the A. We are very confident that our propositions, and we have seen that through the clinical development, will bring significant value for the patient. But having said that, we need two things. One, we need to have these patients that started to be diagnostic earlier, because if the lesion are too severe, it's more difficult, and it will take time. Two, we need really to make sure that the community of physicians who are able to treat this patient will be able to get access to this patient, because very often the patients are completely fragmented and isolated into different parts. So we need to bring them back to the dermatologist and making sure that they are well treated. From an access standpoint, that will be covered, let's say, in the contracting in 2025. But today, it's an area where there is less competition, there is less offering, and the medical need is huge. So it's a very important and significant growth driver for the product. But I don't want to leave you with this idea that it is the main growth driver. We still have a lot to grow because we are launching the other indication at the same time. So we are pushing that independently from each other with specific and focused people on each patient's population. But psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, AS, non-radiographic axSpA, and HS are really the big indication for us in the future for BIMZELX. And you've been ahead of the launch a little bit in Europe in terms of the timings of the launch. Yeah. So across the indications, what have you seen in Europe or ex U.S. in terms of the different indications and the ramp-up? First of all, there is no difference from a patient standpoint in terms of feedback that we got from physicians or from patient. It's really amazing to see that real-life data and the real-life experience has really more than confirmed what we have achieved in clinical trial. In fact, it's even more. We have some physicians that have been our investigators who have told us, "The reality of what I see in the patients is even better than what I have seen in the clinical trial." Because sometimes clinical trial are creating a weight, and it's not really real-life. There is no differences also from a geographical standpoint. The reaction of the patients in Japan, in Europe, in U.S. are really the same. So far, as soon as the physician have started to build the confidence with the drug and have started to treated patients, the ability then to expand the prescription is coming naturally. Now, as you have said, we were a little bit earlier in Europe than in U.S. So you have seen a penetration which was a little bit better because of the timing, and access is already a little bit different in Europe versus the U.S. or in Japan versus U.S. So in certain market, because of this free access or access which is easier, the penetration is faster than in others, where there are some limitation. But the feedback is very strong and very positive, and so every signal that we get from Europe strengthen our confidence in the ability to reach the leadership in the U.S. In terms of patient retention or duration of treatment- Yeah The efficacy is really good. I think some of the clinical trial data had very good durability of response as well. Yeah. What are you seeing across the different geographies with patients? We have been able, through open-label extension, for example, to get some data, and we have now up to four years of open-label extensions and data for BIMZELX, where we have seen a very powerful duration of actions and stability of the return. We are very reassured on the ability to maintain the results over time. In some European countries, in Germany in particular, we have been able to get some data after the first year of in real life, and the data are at the same level that what we had in the clinical trial. It's also very reassuring. However, the ability of the current systems and environment to get longitudinal data in real life, it's quite difficult. U.S. releases changement of benefits sometimes every year. It's not that easy to have a very precise and accurate data on the persistence and the durability. From what we have seen, we are very reassured on the ability to maintain the results. Now, it's quite logic in a sense, right? If you have suffered from a chronic disease for many years and suddenly you find a treatment that clean your skin from psoriasis completely, you are relatively highly motivated to maintain and to continue to be treated as long as you see the benefits. The engagement of the patient is strong as long as the data and the outcome is positive. That also play a role. The fact that we get six patients out of 10 completely with clear skin, accelerate the patient engagement. You talked about the better access. I presume with better access, you would push harder maybe on marketing and selling. Does that have any cost implications as we go into 2025? There was a sequence in that. Maybe I just would like to keep the sequence with you. When we launched the products in the U.S. in particular, we put in place what we named the bridge program. The bridge program was put in place in a sense, in order to achieve two things. One was to increase as quickly as possible the volume of patients who get the benefit of the drug. Because we had a very positive outcome, we were very confident that the sooner we could get a big numbers of patients having be treated, we will get a positive momentum. That was one. The second was to make the life of the patient and the physician easy. You don't want the physician and the patients to be concerned and to spend a lot of time into benefit, investigations, prior authorizations or these type of things. Making sure that, for the physician standpoint, if the physician decided, yes, I want these patients to be treated with BIMZELX, then it would be easier. We got that very well. In a sense, we have been able to increase the volume relatively early and to get these numbers of patients following a prescription who would be able to get access to the treatment and be covered by the treatment. That creates an environment, in a sense, by which we have been able to produce a volume of patients and to get data on the reality of these patients that have created an ability to influence, in a sense, the system to recognize this value and to provide access. I do feel that, as you have seen, if we have no exclusion, it's because of the quality of the product. We didn't want to leverage price as a way to have a better access. We just want to be consistent with the marketplace and making sure that we get the rules of the market, but not creating an additional incentive to price. We also wanted to recognize that because of this superiority that we had versus standard of care, and because of the quality of the outcome for the patient, it was important for PBMs also to make sure that we will not exclude such a product for their customer base. I wanted to pivot to myasthenia gravis and RYSTIGGO. You came a little bit behind a competitor Yeah who had a very strong launch of their FcRn product. Yeah. Yet RYSTIGGO, the uptake has been pretty strong as well. Do you think the market might be bigger? What is the secret of the success of that ramp-up? There are two elements, or maybe three that I would like to highlight for that. First, don't forget that these patients, before these new generations of new treatments and new biologics, these patients had very limited solutions to be treated at home. Their only solution was to go to the hospital few days per month, 4 or 5 days per month, to get either an IVIG and a plasmapheresis. Imagine your life if you have to go to the hospital 4 days every month in terms of planning, in terms of activities, in terms of independence. It's a huge constraint. Initially we thought that the arrival of these new categories of treatment will created a very quick switch and push from these patients who would be happy to leave hospitals and to go to infusion centers close to them and to have much less burden and not have to stay several days at the hospitals. It is happening, of course, but it takes time. The notion of the market is bigger than expected. I think the market is continuing to evolving to be more treated with this treatment, but there are still patients who are treated in a different way. The second element is it is a market which is quite heterogeneous. Its heterogeneity and diversity is a diversity from a patient standpoint. A lot of patients have different symptoms. They are sometimes at a different target, the MuSK versus the AChR. They have a different way to express the disease, and so the treatment and the responders are not always the same. There is no one treatment that fits everything. Which means also that the reason why for us it is very important, and it has been a good value proposition, to get a portfolio of assets to propose for these physicians and these patients. Having a new anti-C5, which was a daily injection, is very easy to do to control the inflammation, and an anti-FcRn, allow us to cover the different needs of the different patients population. To come back to your point, yes, we were not the first, but we think we have a good value proposition with our products in terms of indication, in terms of specificity, and we think that we cover a broader spectrum of diversity of the patient with the two assets. Maybe onto ZILBRYSQ then. You talked about the heterogeneity of patients. How is that fitting in, and what has been the response to that, and how do you go to market with the two products? Well, if you want simple figures, which of course it is an extreme, but the ZILBRYSQ patient is a young adult suffering from myasthenia gravis with an active life, a professional life, and who want to get a better control of the disease day in and out. A RYSTIGGO patient is more an elderly patient who is more comfortable not to treat by themselves, more comfortable that a physician or someone will do the subcutaneous infusion, and will provide the treatment. On one side, you get patients who want to have a control of the disease, a continuous control, who will want to remain independent, do not want to go to the hospital or to the infusion centers, want to limit the visit to the physicians. On the other side, you have maybe someone who is comfortable with a cycle of dosing. For us, it's four cycle per year, so it's not that big, it's not that long. On top of that, the duration of the subcutaneous infusion for us is quite short. It's 18 minutes. You don't need to stay in these centers very long, just 20 minutes. So it's kind of an easy one. But it's also creating an environment where you feel supported and you feel well-treated. So you can feel that it's very different. At the beginning, I had some question about the overlap between the two product. What we see in real life is that we have a very limited amount of overlap, and the two products are more synergistic or complementary than overlapping to each other. You announced at the end of last year, or the back, the last quarter, a couple of disposals of assets. Yeah. Can you maybe explain the strategic rationale for that? Yeah. Why are you doing that? Yes. There are two things. One, the disposal of the mature products that we have, we are doing that on a regular base, every year, every other year. The rationale is very simple strategically. Strategically, we needed this product for the last 10 years because these products were producing EBIT, and with this EBIT, we could, of course, invest into our research and development and prepare the pipeline of the future. We are less and less with this need now in the sense that the new products are launched. We get this growth, so we continue to grow from a profitability standpoint. We feel that we need to simplify our portfolio from both an asset standpoint and a geographical standpoint. The ability to little by little selling some of these assets year after year help us to simplify our portfolio, be more focused on our priority, avoid cost related to the maintenance of this product. These assets sometimes are in a better hands of others who will really dedicate your efforts to these assets where we would not be able to do so because our resource need to be on growth drivers. The journey has been as soon as we can, if we have the space, then we try to find a better home for this asset. The second element you are referring to, we have also sell our mature portfolio, mainly neurology in China. This was from a strategic standpoint, more or less the same element, but with another twist, if I may say. The point on China for product which was not protected by a patent is with a heavy competition. We didn't have the structure nor the size and the scale of the portfolio to be competitive over time and to be able to have sufficient resource and ability to resist to the provincial pricing and competition that we had for product which are not protected by a patent. Objective was to say we want to continue to grow in China, but we want to grow in China with protected product, with growth products, and we want to do this with partner to help us to engage with the scale that we don't have in China. You touched on the presentation two pipeline assets as well. On the anti-tau bepranemab. We've seen at the high level mixed data, but then in the subgroup- Yeah pretty good data. Yeah. What's your thinking? What's the path forward? It's exactly that, Richard. We are looking at the data in more depth. Basically, a proof of concept is a study where you try to better understand, first the disease and how you interact with the disease with your asset. What we have seen with bepranemab, so bepranemab is an anti-tau antibody. We have been able, through a human cell testing, to engineer an antibody we think link with an epitope at the best possible location of the target. That was the scientific hypothesis which make our anti-tau slightly different than others. We think we have seen a link between this and what we have seen in the clinical data. Now, overall, the main criteria was not reached for the overall population, so you may argue that the POC was not positive. However, we feel that we have identified a couple of subpopulation for who the signal had been relatively strong. We are looking at that. When I say we have identified subpopulation with a strong signal, it's a strong signal on three dimension. One, this population splits significantly on almost all criteria versus the rest of the population. Two, this population is relatively homogeneous in the way they answer to the product. Three, when you look at individuals, each individuals have a relatively same way to answer to the different criteria to evaluate the disease. There is a potential signal which is relatively strong, we feel, because there is a consistency within the patient, a consistency across the patient within the subgroup, and a clear differentiation of this group versus the rest of the group. Now, having said that, of course, the study have not been built to try to test this hypothesis, so we need to now go back and evaluate what is the scientific hypothesis that we better understand why these subpopulations react like that and potentially build a phase III around these new insights. The other one was in lupus, where you had a positive phase III trial, but are starting another phase III trial, I think required by the regulators. How quickly can we see that to market with your partner? I hope as fast as possible. Maybe to give you a little bit of background. Lupus, as you know, is a graveyard for clinical developments. We always said that we want to partner for sharing the risk of a very high-risk asset. So we have this asset with our partner, Biogen. The reason of the partnering on top was we think we had a good asset, but we wanted to limit the risk, and so to limit the investment, because in terms of resource allocation, we had quite a plate pretty full. We didn't want to do the two phase III in parallel. But as you said, regulatory requirements required two phase III in order to get the approval. Now that we have a positive phase III, and don't forget, it's the only third time in the entire history that we have a positive phase III in lupus, which is pretty amazing, right? So objective is, we have started the second phase III. We are starting as we speak. But of course, we are engaging with the FDA to try to see what is the best way to try to achieve access for this patient to a solution that potentially can help them. Perfect. I think unfortunately, we are out of time. We do have one question at the front. Can we quickly do that? Let's quickly do it. Dear, oh dear. Just over here. Did you have a mic over there? Yeah. Hi. Thanks for the talk. I will try to make it quick. Are you looking at expanding the pipeline into other modalities, like other novel modalities, all kinds of mRNA and all kinds of antibody conjugates and sort of things? Thank you. In terms of platforms, if I understand well your question, in terms of platforms, the platform that we are concentrated on is antibody engineering, small molecules, including macrocyclic peptide. Then we have started, as you know, a few years ago to build platforms in gene therapy. So that is the platform that we are strengthening internally. For the other platform, we are always looking at the competition and at what is going on. We have a venture fund that also invest into early stage, into platform that we do not have internally in order to test into cell therapy, for example, or CAR T or others. So we are looking at that, but in this case, it is more partnering than internal platforms. Perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Richard. Thank you very much, everyone.