Morning sessions. I'm Jeff Meacham. I'm the Senior BioPharma Analyst here at Citi. This is our first annual Global Healthcare Conference, so we're thrilled to put it on. We're excited to have with us on stage AbbVie. So we have CFO Scott Reents, we have COO Jeff Stewart, and we have CSO and Head of R&D Roopal Thakkar. So thanks, guys, for coming. Appreciate the time. So let's talk a little bit about, as we sort of head off the rest of the year, like how are you guys thinking about 2025 and the bigger events to look forward to and the bigger picture on next year?
Sure. So maybe I mean, obviously, we've been very happy with the performance of the ex-Humira business this year in 2024. We're looking forward to closing out on a continued positive note. When you think about the execution of the ex-Humira business, every quarter for the first three quarters, we've beat expectations on the top line and the bottom line. When you look at that top line profile, we've raised cumulatively sales by $1.8 billion over the course of the year. And that's really been driven by the growth platform. Our growth platform is our ex-Humira business, which accounts for more than 80% of our sales. And that has been performing extremely well, growing year to date on a high-teens basis. In the third quarter, it grew 18% on a reported basis. So extremely strong momentum.
When you look at, obviously, Skyrizi and Rinvoq, both growing around 50%, have been the real drives over that. But it's been across the business. We've seen it in neuroscience. We've seen it with the launch of Vyalev outside the U.S., strong momentum, the approval of Vyalev, certainly in immunology with the launch of Skyrizi UC. Just seen very strong momentum and execution in the business. And I think from the R&D perspective, we've had some good results. We've had some nice readouts from tavapadon. We've got a third readout coming, hopefully, yet this year. And we've also kicked off our phase two combination trials for using Skyrizi and other novel agents for Crohn's. And so good momentum across the business. And I think that sets us up nicely for 2025. When we look at 2025, we've talked about robust mid-single digit growth.
You have to remember, that's our growth platform overcoming continued Humira erosion, which will continue, of course, again on an absolute basis in 2025. And this headwind from Part D redesign of approximately 3% on the top line. So the business is just performing extremely well. And we've been very excited about that. And we continue to feel very confident in 2025.
Yeah, let's lead with Skyrizi and Rinvoq from a fundamental driver perspective. So you have expansion into IBD. Give us some perspective on initial thoughts from gastroenterologists, how you think the brand has been received thus far. And looking to the next, say, couple of years, there are still some maybe more line extensions to come, right? It could be people saying as big as Humira, maybe bigger, definitely, when you look at the aggregate of the two.
Yeah, we do see that Skyrizi and Rinvoq together will be bigger than Humira's peak, and we've seen that in our longer-term guidance. But to your point on IBD, we have just a tremendous setup in IBD because you take a look at both of those indications, so you've got Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. About two-thirds of the market is Crohn's disease, one-third ulcerative colitis. But both are very, very substantial, and the way that we've tried to look at the development and then the commercialization is that we have two brands in each indication, so right now, we have all four indications settled with the two brands. So we have Skyrizi for both Crohn's and ulcerative colitis, and we have Rinvoq for both Crohn's and ulcerative colitis, so it's relatively efficient for us to get at those gastroenterologists. There's about 9,000 U.S. gastroenterologists that we call on.
We're able to co-position both brands very effectively. So tremendous momentum in the business. Now, your question, Jeff, on ulcerative colitis, that was the fourth of our indications. We had the other three sort of in the market and in play. What we've seen is very strong uptake for ulcerative colitis. So while the market is smaller, if you look at the relative acceleration or launch trajectory, it's virtually mapping right on top of Crohn's, which is very, very encouraging. When we talk to our field teams and our medical teams and the gastroenterologists, they are extremely impressed with Skyrizi in particular for the naive patient, the patient that has not been exposed to a biologic yet. That's where we have really exceptional efficacy. So we have some of the highest endoscopic remission scores that have ever been seen in the marketplace.
And this is on the back of incredible results for our own Rinvoq and later lines. So the feedback from the field has been exceptional. And again, what really distinguishes both brands is that the market has moved, I would say, over the last 24-30 months from a focus on clinical remission, so the signs and symptoms of the disease, to that plus what's actually happening in the gut with the endoscopic remission. So very good momentum overall. And it certainly contributed, as Scott mentioned this year, to aspects of the beat and raise that we've seen with IBD.
Yep. And to what degree are you seeing persistent rates relative to your expectations? I mean, this is a long-duration therapy. The convenience of Skyrizi can lead to multi-years on drug, which is probably well in excess of what you probably saw with Humira.
Yeah, we do see very strong persistent rates relative to Humira and really relative to the other products in the category. And it has to do with you're just getting into a deeper level of remission or a deeper level of control. And they are convenient. I mean, Rinvoq is once a day, very easy to take. And Skyrizi is very convenient as well. It's every three months in psoriatic disease. It's every eight weeks in inflammatory bowel disease. So this is clearly a contributing factor. So the way we look at the market development is we first look at capture rate. So our capture rate, which we've highlighted before, is our in-play capture rate. So how many of the new patients or switching patients in the market are we capturing? And between Rinvoq and Skyrizi in both the U.S. and around the world, it's over 50%.
Our total market share is in the sort of the high single digits. You have a huge headroom as your persistency kicks in, to your point. We should see some very strong growth over time. It's just not IBD. I mean, all of the Rinvoq and Skyrizi indications are performing quite well.
Yep. And just to wrap it up on Rinvoq and atopic derm, maybe just give us some perspective and maybe a view from the field on how you're resonating with dermatologists in the AD setting.
Yeah, one of the things that we've highlighted is we've recently completed and put into the market the second large head-to-head trial versus Dupixent. And we designed this specifically for the U.S. market, although it's really relevant for around the world. And what we did is we looked to say, how do we elevate standard of care? And so for many years in atopic derm , it was, does your skin clear and can you control the itch? We took an endpoint that was very unique and relevant, which was, how often do you get to almost complete skin clearance or EASI 90, 90% plus skin clearance and little to no discernible itch? And that's really almost a remission-type endpoint for atopic dermatitis. And that's where we had significant advantages, statistically significant versus Dupixent.
And so while Dupixent is a very significant drug, what we've seen in the market is that our capture rate, again, that in-play share has continued to increase as we've put that data into the market. And we've clearly established ourselves as a clear number two in that marketplace, which is the most robust market that we see in immunology right now, given the growth rates and the under-penetration. So AD is doing very well. And that was our ninth head-to-head trial that we've conducted to differentiate the asset in itself.
We'll come back to you on more commercial questions. But Roopal, I wanted to talk a little bit about the emraclidine data. Maybe just give us your overall view, if you have had a chance to look at data in a little bit more detail, kind of help us with kind of what the viability is from here.
Yeah, so thanks for the question. We were obviously surprised with the data readout we saw based on our observations of the phase 1b data, which looked very strong, strength of two different doses in different endpoints that was consistent with and maybe even better with emerging data for the other muscarinic KarXT. And being a similar mechanism, that's why we took a look. We were also comfortable with the trial management and strategies to control placebo. But it's humbling when you see the placebo rate in phase 1b of a decrease of 6.8 points. And then moving on to the pivotals, it was in the 13-16 range, which we did anticipate a drift up, but not to the extent that we ultimately saw. So that was a bit of a surprise. We are interrogating the data, as you stated, Jeff.
We are seeing some sites that had very high placebo responses, so the next step is to then look at what were the efficacy outcomes, so we are seeing it's not consistent, right, so there's a pretty big standard deviation around the placebo, so there are a number of sites that had very high levels of placebo response, so next step is to look at the ones that didn't. If we see separation there, then what we would consider is further assessment, and a couple of approaches would be, one, move into a phase two setting for us to further de-risk in our own hands, continue to assess schizophrenia. One opportunity could be as an adjunct if we think there's some loss of efficacy. Because what we did see that we're pleased with is the safety profile.
We don't have the need for another anticholinergic agent to be given with this. So we don't see anticholinergic adverse events, particularly gastrointestinal in nature. Or what we see with the other agent, bladder retention. I know it's uncommon, but that tells you that there is an anticholinergic effect. So we don't see that. So from a standpoint of combinability, there's still potential there that we're assessing. Because the atypicals used in schizophrenia all have some anticholinergic effects. So it can be challenging for the new launch and their work to be actually able to combine. Also, some of the most commonly used atypical agents, Seroquel, Zyprexa, their generics, signal through M4, M1, and M4. So you'll have direct potential competition, which emraclidine wouldn't as an allosteric modulator. So that's how we're thinking about it now.
I would say the beginning of next year, we'll have an idea how good does schizophrenia look again, adjunct, potentially bipolar. Also likely to continue on our Alzheimer's and Alzheimer's psychosis and Parkinson's psychosis. That phase 1 is ongoing to get to a dose in healthy elderly. We think it's an advantage to have a strong safety profile for older patients. We've observed the published data from KarXT. There's an 80%, I think, discontinuation rate at a year in their own data. We still, though delayed, could still be a potential with an agent that has a strong safety profile, albeit potentially lower efficacy.
To what degree were you expecting or were you surprised by the level of professional patients as a lot of KOLs have called them?
Yeah. So you hear about that qualitatively. It's hard for us to exactly quantify because we don't know exactly the patient. It's all blinded to the sponsor. So some of that will likely come out as we talk to sites and interview them to see what kind of impression they're getting. But certainly in the acute studies, which require hospitalization for that five or six weeks, that's where that concept of professional patient comes up because of the compensation associated can be several thousand dollars of compensation. So that would drive potential professional patients into that. And we were also in the environment where patients were finishing up on KarXT studies. So that's, again, it's more qualitative in nature, hard to quantify. But when you go into adjunct, that is more of an outpatient, so different type of population.
That's, again, part of our thinking that will come, again, early next year with some plans. But while we look at that data, I think Scott mentioned this earlier as part of Cerevel, tavapadon. There's a third phase three in Parkinson's that we'll hope to read out this year. And then a long-term safety data set probably early next year. And thus far, the two phase threes actually are the opposite in the sense that we had anticipated a certain outcome. It's so far far exceeded our initial thinking on that. So if the third one holds up in a similar type of efficacy and safety profile, in particular, we don't see the sedation that you see with other dopamine agonists, then you can anticipate a submission strategy next year. The long-term data will give you the read on impulse control disorder.
That has likely limited the use, particularly in the U.S., of those dopamine agonists. So thus far, in the 26-week data sets from two phase 3s, we don't see that as being an issue, nor sedation, which are the large problems right now for use in Parkinson's. And if this continues to pan out, it's a very nice complement to Vyalev, which is just getting started in the U.S., strong momentum globally that Jeff can speak about, but just starting in the U.S. in advanced. And this could be an oral that comes before, which would be a very nice opportunity and would achieve and meet a very large unmet need that continues in Parkinson's.
I mean, AbbVie has a very large neuroscience segment anyway. But to what degree, if you do your analysis on emraclidine and it doesn't look like there is maybe a smaller opportunity than you thought, to what degree do you feel like you have to be in the muscarinics? And are there backups at Cerevel that you could go to? Or would you look externally, again, at BD?
Yeah, it's a very good question. Remember, this was going to be a contributor in 2030 and beyond, and that's basically you talked about looking externally. I think we continue to look externally across our main pillars and looking at those opportunities that would achieve unmet need, be differentiated in 2030 and beyond, but given the neuroscience portfolio, we have multiple other backup agents that came with Cerevel that we would likely see in the 2026 timeframe that are in the muscarinic class, but direct agonists, partial agonists, allosteric, all of those. In addition to the sort of outsized response we've seen with tavapadon, with Vyalev, with the continued growth and assessment of our migraine franchise going into menstrual migraine.
We just did the deal for Aliada, a blood-brain barrier penetrating technology for A-beta for pyroglutamate A-beta, which our scientists believe is probably one of the most toxic forms for neurons. So that will continue in the clinic. So I think we have Vraylar, obviously strong growth there, but we have a backup to Vraylar in the D3 space that will enter into phase two within the next several months in generalized anxiety disorder, which is an indication that Vraylar doesn't have, as well as bipolar depression and MDD. And we continue to have a partnership with Gedeon Richter, who invented Vraylar, to look at even more follow-ons, partnership with Gilgamesh to look for depression. So I would say there's substantially more in the pipeline in neuroscience, which is a very important growth area for us.
I guess the bigger picture on that is, looking forward, would there be sort of a bias now to maybe look at larger data sets, longer follow-up when you think about BD? I mean, we all get it. The risks of a binary event, it is what it is, right?
Yeah.
But is there something that you could say, take away from Cerevel and say, "Okay, now we want to meet a certain threshold of data from a deal perspective"?
Yeah. I think when you see an event like this, you all go through a process of self-reflection, which we're all doing in R&D, and it does make us think a little bit differently. I would characterize that maybe in neuropsychiatry or other therapeutic areas or indications that do have large placebo responses, and a couple of ways that we would think about future deals or even development of internal assets is how do we de-risk ourselves? We'd be working with Scott's team on how we also de-risk the capital expenditure, how that's done, and how much data do we really need to have a greater expenditure, and that would probably be much more de-risked and preferably in our hands, so earlier assets, we de-risk, again, contributing 2030 and beyond. We feel comfortable with that strategy, about 15 deals this year that we've done similar to that.
We don't necessarily rule out something at a different scale, but the focus would be on the smaller deals, 2030 and beyond contribution. If it's something else on a different scale, we would likely want to de-risk ourselves, particularly in neuropsychiatry, where there's variability of placebo response. Or, as you stated, Jeff, larger data sets, phase 3 confirmatory that we've seen. And that's consistent. Switch topics quickly to oncology, which is what we did with ImmunoGen, where you had overall survival. It's about as de-risked as you can get, I would say, in certain circumstances. So that asset continues to do well. But when we looked at that deal, there was also a ready-to-go backup, 151, which is also progressing very nicely. So I think that's a good example of how we could look at something like a de-risk deal.
And I guess final question on BD. From a therapeutic area perspective, you guys have a number of verticals that you're pretty strong in. There seems to be a lot of still interest in the metabolic space, right? So what's the hurdle to add a new TA to AbbVie from a, let's say, an IRR perspective?
Sure. I mean, I think when you think about even to the extent you're de-risking question, I mean, when we look at our business development strategy, it's the same strategy that's been in place and continues to be in place. We have the set of assets in hand today that we're executing upon and, again, have strong momentum with to drive that high single-digit top-line growth through the decade. That's our long-term guidance that we've given. We have what we need to achieve that, which is certainly top-tier growth. When we've engaged and looked at accessing innovation through BD, we've looked at earlier stage. Roopal mentioned the 15 transactions that we've signed this year. That's all aimed at providing growth drivers for later in the year. And we focus that on our five growth areas: immunology, oncology, neuroscience, aesthetics, and eye care.
When you think about those areas, they're large areas, right? I mean, neuroscience alone, huge unmet needs in certain spaces. Obviously, immunology, we've been very strong over the years and it continues to be unmet need there. And oncology, of course. So the breadth and depth of those growth areas are big and offer a lot of opportunities and very important. That said, we're trying to find growth drivers for the latter half of the decade. And so while we have a primary and a very strong focus on those areas, we're always going to be looking at the landscape to see what else might be out there. And if there's something that has a high unmet need, we're able to differentiate ourselves in it and it offers opportunity. That's certainly something that we would assess. We wouldn't be doing our jobs if we didn't do that.
But the primary focus continues to be on the growth areas.
Let's talk a little bit about the from a policy perspective. I don't think anyone expects the IRA to be withdrawn. I mean, I think if anything, maybe more caveats could be added to it. But what is AbbVie's? What are you guys' expectations for next year at a high level from a healthcare policy? Are there certain elements on the docket that you should get investors to pay attention to when it comes to leadership at FDA or HHS or CMS?
Yeah, maybe I'll start. And Jeff, certainly add your perspectives because you have some important ones. But I think there's a lot of speculation. There's a lot of uncertainty as to what may or may not happen in the next administration. I think that when we look at the policy implications generally, I think we'll have to certainly see how it plays out. I think when we look at it from an FTC perspective, we've been doing transactions. We've not been hindered by some of the discussion around what might or might not be allowable. We do that because we look at transactions. We have a sound legal basis for taking forward. That's how we've done the 15 smaller transactions, but certainly even closing ImmunoGen and Cerevel this year. We felt very good about our legal positions, kind of irrespective of what administration is in existence.
I think when you think about something like the IRA, as you mentioned, there has been, since the implementation, certainly this differentiation between nine and 13 years for small and large molecules. Something that harmonization there makes a lot of policy sense. It's much better for innovation. And maybe Jeff can touch on that. But that's something there's been some bipartisan support for. So we, and I think our peers in the industry are all very hopeful. And I think this benefits patients ultimately that there would be a harmonization there because I think that that'll, again, be positive for innovation. So that's something that we look for. But I think we really try to take the approach of let's have good medicine. Let's have sound science. Let's bring that to the FDA.
I think that ultimately should prevail, just like when we're looking at transactions, if we have good sound basis for what we're doing, it fits us strategically and has strong legal support. So we're hopeful that that'll continue. I think the other area that comes out a little bit is tax policy. With the tax reform from 2017, there's some expiring provisions. I think that should be an area that, with a Republican Congress, should be at least we should be held harmless and continue to have a competitive tax system in that environment as well.
Yeah. From a, I guess, a macro perspective, wanted to ask a little bit about the aesthetics business, and it's obviously some of the macro headwinds that have pressured the growth are a little bit, in theory, if we have lower rates, lower inflation, more money in consumers' pockets. To what degree do you think that could play out for the aesthetics business in the next year or two?
Yeah, I think we look at the fundamentals of the aesthetics business, and it's very, very attractive. So the overall penetration of facial aesthetics, which is a very big component of our business and the overall global business, is extremely low. So you're talking about high single digits penetration in the toxin market, which is really the leading edge of that overall facial market, and low single digits in our second biggest market, like China, for example. So fundamentally, you've got a lot of headroom of people that are in the consideration phase that start to trickle in. And if we look at the longer term over how that market's grown, prior to the inflationary crisis, it was around 12%-13% a year. And so we don't see it or need to think that it would need to grow that fast.
So we think it may, once we get to see the recovery, sort of the high single digit. And that's very, very manageable. I think it's a good expectation. What we do see, to your point, Jeff, is that it is a bit of the money in the pocket issue right now, and the consumer confidence is still suppressed in many of the markets around the world. But it won't be there forever. I mean, now that inflation's coming under control, some of the macro dynamics, we'll have to monitor, for example, the fiscal stimulus in China. China can go up and down pretty fast. In China, again, we'll have to monitor because it's not a direct stimulus, but there is a lot of the property mindset in the Chinese consumers in terms of how they open their wallet. So eventually, this market is going to come back.
And it's not just sort of the waiting for the market to come back. We have an ability to control and shape that. I think, for example, in the innovation pipeline, we have our short-acting toxin, our so-called BoNT/E, which is a very effective. It's a trial toxin. And so it's designed essentially to open up and speed up the funnel of the patients that are in the consideration mode for a toxin, which is really where the facial aesthetics start to rate in the market faster because the short-acting toxin basically overcomes two objections of those consumers. The first is cost, okay, because it's expensive to first get in. And second is, and the most important is the fear I may look funny or unnatural look.
But this toxin, really, it works in less than a day to get the full aesthetic effect, and it's gone in about two and a half weeks. So it's an easy entry point that can stimulate that market. And we think that that is going to help our business significantly as we get towards the approval there, probably in the 2026 timeframe.
Gotcha. How do you anticipate over time the segmentation of the market? Do you expect a BoNT/E user to eventually switch to longer-acting Botox or?
Absolutely. The real benefit of the BoNT/E is, again, to get the patients moving faster through that consideration phase into the market, into those aesthetic practices, and so ultimately, because it only works for two and a half, three weeks, no one is going to, on an ongoing basis, want to consume something like that, but what will happen commercially is you'll see the market stimulus through Allergan and AbbVie into the practices, and then we know very quickly that the patients overwhelmingly like the look. They like the aesthetic effect, and their appointment is made for full-strength Botox within the 30-day period, around the 30-day period, so it really is a leading tip of the spear, so to speak, from an innovation and commercial standpoint, but ultimately, BoNT/E powers the Botox growth.
Yep. Gotcha. And last question, you mentioned the fiscal stimulus in China. What sort of lag, if any, would you expect to see the economic benefit of that once that plays out, presumably in 2025?
Yeah. Typically, when we've looked at the Chinese market, things happen quite quickly. So within a quarter or two from a major change. For example, we highlighted in our, I think it was our second quarter earnings, we saw the Chinese market really drop quite substantially. And that was because there were expectations in the Chinese population that there would be stimulus, but there wasn't. There wasn't stimulus. It was sort of teased, and then it never was executed. It ultimately was then executed later. Again, not direct stimulus into the pocketbook. So we saw a very rapid downturn in the aesthetic practices based on expectation setting. So the psychology is pretty sensitive to the consumer, particularly in China. So once we would start to monitor and see how things loosened up, it could happen pretty quickly. We see it come in a quarter or two.
Gotcha. Okay. Let's go back to I&I. And so it's nice we're on minute eight, and we're talking about Humira erosion at the end of the conversation. So I think that's a good thing that investors are looking past that. But just wanted to get your high-level expectation for next year. I don't think you guys expect there to be an impact from Stelara biosimilars, but maybe other new developments with respect to Humira biosimilars that could play out in 2025.
Yes.
Like new access or newer?
So basically, I mean, by the end of next year, it would have been the third full year. So if you think about it, for 2023, where you had the first biosimilars enter, largely what we saw and observed that we guided was overwhelmingly price concessions to maintain parity access. And that's exactly how that played out. This year, we obviously said some of the payers, and it was still a minority, would move towards exclusions. And we saw that in the middle of the year, really started April 1st with CVS. And typically, still a large amount of parity access, but with some unique dynamics that we didn't fully anticipate. And we've talked about this, which is that once you saw a large exclusion with one of the PBMs, not all of the Humira patients went to the biosimilar.
Many went to about 25% went to other mechanisms, including our own Skyrizi and Rinvoq. And we've consistently seen that the molecule itself, so that means Humira plus all the biosimilars, has shrunk more than you would have thought just based on a trend analysis. So this year was a mix of both volume loss and price. Next year, we see the continued evolution. So you're going to see more payers start to think of exclusions. In many cases, what we see developing is that it's a partial exclusion, which means some payers have already announced that they will stop allowing access to new patients on Humira, but they will so-called grandfather or have a continuity of care for the existing patients on Humira.
We'll continue to see an evolution of more switching, more of a mix towards volume and price as we see into the third year of the dynamic. I think what's very important to your point is that eventually, as we go through 2025 and we get into 2026, Humira won't be a significant headwind anymore to that return to growth that Scott talked about. Certainly, we'll deliver mid-single digit robust growth this year despite that sort of final turn on Humira and the Part D benefit design. And as we get to 2026, you're not going to see that same headwind for the rest of that growth platform that's moving very fast.
Yep. Makes sense. Roopal, on the pipeline, you mentioned Elahere and that there's a lot happening. I think the data for platinum sensitive is maybe a few years out. But talk about what most excites you for new developments in the AbbVie pipeline for 2025. I know you guys have a BCMA in development. You have a number of assets in oncology.
Sure. Maybe stay on oncology. So yes, Elahere, platinum sensitive, phase three is ongoing. We have phase II data that's out that has been submitted for guideline updates. And then there is a next-gen ADC for that one, which is biparatopic. It binds two different areas and maybe has better internalization, more potent, better linker. And that data will start to emerge, I would say, beginning of next year. And we may contemplate then dose optimization and quickly get into combinations with bevacizumab, platinum, PARP, which could be very challenging for competitors to get into. And then beyond that, we'll take both of those assets, Elahere and this ABBV-151 asset, and attach a topoisomerase warhead to that. And staying on the ADC front, Teliso-V is under review now, and we anticipate a regulatory action next year in EGFR wild-type lung.
It's a modest-sized indication, but very important because it highlights targeting of c-Met, which is what our next-gen antibody ABBV-400 does in lung. And so far, our data in lung with ABBV-400 relative to Teliso-V, which again is under review, seeing action next year, is response rates that are maybe twice the size, twice as high as what we saw in Teliso-V, and allowing us to go into more intermediate and lower-expressing c-Met. So it's important for Teliso-V to be there to start getting prepared for ABBV-400 in lung. We'll have lung mutant data coming out next year. And in colorectal, the phase 3 will start in third line plus, which colorectal itself is very much like ovarian. It's very chemo-driven. And to have a biomarker-directed therapy that has response rates that are four or five times a standard of care is going to be very important.
And then the potential for a combo with bevacizumab with ABBV-400 in colorectal and Alzheimer's. And then that moving into earlier lines of combinations with chemo is going to be very important. And then staying in lung but switching to small cell lung cancer, we'll see data readout from ABBV-706. That's our SEZ6 topo, which we showcased at ASCO. Very high response rates. We'll get duration of response also next year. And then our BCMA CD3 in multiple myeloma. That phase three has initiated in later lines of therapy, but next year we'll start combinations with earlier lines of therapy to be able to move that forward. The reason why we like that asset, even though it's behind, is that we're targeting not having a REMS, ease of administration outside of the hospital, limited step-up dosing, once-monthly dosing very quickly, and low CRS.
That would allow it to differentiate from existing assets. Combinability, if you have a good safety profile, low CRS, potential able to combine, go into earlier lines and drive those response rates even higher. Because it's coming later, there will be some more competitive dynamic with CAR-T, though that is typically in academic centers. Majority of treatment of multiple myeloma and many heme malignancies is as an outpatient, less access to CAR-T. Also globally, there's less access to CAR-T. If we can combine it, you'll see very high levels potentially of response. That way, it's not a first-in-class, but definitely has potential for best-in-class. A lot of this data will start reading out to stronger survival. Such data will be in the 2027 timeframe and potentially other indications with 400 once a basket study starts to read out next year as well.
So we talked about the Neuro pipeline and the HemOnc pipeline. So in I&I, I guess 668 is the main asset. Anything there from a [uncertain] kind of event perspective?
Yeah. I would say it's one of many assets. So that's a RIPK1 oral in ulcerative colitis. We would want to see high levels of efficacy when you have something like Skyrizi and Rinvoq. And we also have another oral partner, the deal we did for Landos. That's another one that we'll see reading out. And then importantly, we have a number of biologics that we are looking to assess in IBD and combine with Skyrizi. And in fact, those studies have started. And that includes mechanisms down the road of TREM1. TL1A is coming. Alpha 4 beta 7 will be combined now, which we have our own. And of course, lutikizumab, which has very strong data in hidradenitis suppurativa today. It's already in phase 3. And we see high expression in the gut of patients that are resistant to other biologics of IL-1 beta, which Luty also targets.
That will also be in combination with Rinvoq. And that started now. We have a variety of pipeline agents in immunology that will be looking at monotherapy, looking for high efficacy. And then in combination with Skyrizi, because you have a strong safety profile, we now see the potential to add on to a biologic to drive efficacy even higher. There's a lot of headspace in IBD where even with Skyrizi and Rinvoq, full remission rates are still in the 30% or 40% range. And we do see patients now from first line, second line, third line that are going to need care and unmet need continues to grow. It's, I would say, a comprehensive approach beyond a single asset that we have in immunology.
Gotcha.