Welcome to the third day of the first annual Citi Global Healthcare Conference. My name is Geoff Meacham. I'm a senior biopharma analyst here at Citi. We're thrilled today to have Amgen with us on stage. And so we have a lot of folks here. So we have Jay Bradner, Executive VP, R&D, and Chief Scientific Officer. Susan Sweeney, EVP of Obesity and Related Conditions. We have Peter Griffith, EVP and CFO. And we have Justin from the IR team. So welcome, guys. Appreciate the time.
Thank you.
Let's kick it off. It's been a quiet month for you guys the past couple of weeks. Oh, you wanted to.
Hey, Geoff, are you okay if we jump in? We've got a few thoughts we wanted to share with our colleagues.
Yeah, let's do it.
Yeah. Let's do it.
Look, listen, good morning, everyone, wherever you might be on the webcast.
Geoff, thank you. We're always glad to be with Citi. Citi has been a great partner for Amgen over the past number of years. We wanted to take a few minutes this morning, and I'll give you an update on our overall business, a couple of quick thoughts on MariTide. Susan's got a couple of quick observations about the obesity business, which we've had a little bit of questioning and what we think some great news on recently, great data for patients. And then Jay will give you some thoughts, too, about the overall pipeline and also obesity.
But first of all, Geoff, I just wanted to say Amgen continues to innovate at speed and scale across all four of our therapeutic areas in breadth and depth. Our revenues grew 23% in the third quarter, so another very strong quarter, 29% volume growth. Ten products delivered double-digit sales growth in the third quarter. Fourteen products are annualizing at over $1 billion per year based on third-quarter product sales, so strong breadth and strong depth. May be just a quick look at our four therapeutic areas. First, in oncology, the innovative oncology portfolio grew 17% to over $2 billion in the third quarter.
We're very pleased with that. Anytime we see strong growth like that, what's most important is that means a lot more medicines are getting to a lot more patients around the world, so we're pleased with that, and in oncology, I'm sure Jay will speak about some of the strong progress in the pipeline. I just cite xaluritamig, our bispecific T-cell engager. Right now, we've moved it into phase III for advanced prostate cancer. That's exciting. A lot more, though, in that portfolio. I would turn to rare disease then. We closed Horizon on October 6, 2023.
We're delighted that we had an opportunity to work with Citi on that in terms of raising the bonds. We have our ex-treasurer here today, our former treasurer, Justin Claeys. He and I worked on that and delighted to do that. We closed that. We are happier to be in rare disease today, Geoff, than we were when we announced that deal, than we were when we closed it. It's such a great strategic fit for Amgen. I would say a great proof point is that Tepezza just launched in Japan for thyroid eye disease.
Our international infrastructure that we've worked on building out and investing in at Amgen over the past 10-plus years was a key part of the strategic thinking behind that opportunity for us. A great move forward in rare. Tepezza, Krystexxa, Uplizna, and Tavneos, four medicines early in their life cycle, each doing really, really well. That was up to $1.2 billion in product sales in the third quarter, rare, up about 21%. Swinging over to inflammation, up to almost $2 billion. Tezspire, medicine for severe asthma, very innovative medicine, up 67% in the quarter.
We suggested we're moving forward into phase III in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the first half of 2025. Over to Gen Med. A lot going on in Gen Med, as you know. And so I would actually, before we have the solar eclipse here of MariTide and obesity, which is fantastic, just to take a moment on olpasiran Lp(a). I know Jay says this is one of his favorites. It's one of my favorites. We enrolled over 7,200 patients this year, faster than we've ever enrolled in an outcome study. And we're excited about that. We think that enrollment was as fast as anybody's been able to enroll that size study in the industry.
So we're excited about that. Repatha up 40%, LDL-C. Evenity up 30% in the bone portfolio. And that's early in its life cycle. It's going to go a long time. And we're excited about Evenity and what that's doing in the bone portfolio. I would just say biosimilars continue to be strong. We saw the launch of Pavblu there. And so we're encouraged by that. We've got priority review now for Uplizna in rare IgG4-related disease. We think that's a big move. We're very excited about that. A PDUFA date of April 3, 2025. Let me make just a couple of points on MariTide.
We had big news last week, Geoff, as you know, and we're very pleased with the data. I wanted to just reiterate seven really important points about the differentiation of that product. Number one is roughly 20% average weight loss at 52 weeks without a weight loss plateau. Patients were still losing weight. I'm sure you'll interrogate those curves with Susan and Jay, but we're very pleased with those curves and what they indicate in terms of efficacy. Number two, first obesity treatment with monthly or less frequent dosing. Every other month was studied in part one of phase II.
We've indicated we're studying in part 2 of phase II, quarterly dosing. We think amongst many differentiating opportunities there, that's one that highlights persistence and we think can really help in improving persistence in these medicines for patients with obesity, obesity-related conditions, and type 2 diabetes. Substantial improvements in cardiometabolic parameters, low discontinuation rates, 11%. The dose escalation arms due to adverse events of the 11, eight of those percentage points, actually less than eight, were due to GI tolerability.
We think that was very favorable. More than 90% of eligible patients enrolled in part 2 of phase II. We thought that was a great sign also. 17% average weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes, lowered HbA1c by 2.2 percentage points. Huge move there. Looks like a great medicine maybe works its way towards best in class in that area. Last, dose escalation works. We'll talk a lot about that today, I'm sure, so I'm not going to belabor that anymore. But the last point, which is really, really important that we want to share with our investors and with you, Geoff, on the device, a lot of people have been asking about that.
We want to reemphasize Amgen's longstanding world-class expertise in combining our devices with our biotherapeutic medicines. Number one, strengthen protein engineering in our process development group, world-class. Strengthen understanding how to work through viscosity issues. We've been doing that for many years. Strengthen how we incorporate those excipients into these medicines, doing that in absolutely the optimal way. And finally, proprietary device innovation itself with a clear focus on patient safety and experience.
So I wanted to share those comments, take a few more minutes than we usually do, but also just, I want to let Susan have a couple of thoughts, too, here to share with you and with the group. And Susan, please.
Yeah, thanks, Peter. Just to put in context from a commercial standpoint, we think that the attributes that Peter just went through really place MariTide well for competing in the marketplace. Large heterogeneous market, billion patients worldwide, barely any patients just being treated now. We're still in the low single percentage points. And what we do know is that patients need to get to goal and be able to stay on therapy to be able to maintain their weight. And we think the profile of MariTide plays really well there.
On getting to goal, we have efficacy of 20% without a plateau, which means that you might be able to get to a lower, a more substantial weight loss. But that trip to get to goal is really important. Long dose escalation with the weeklies, what we've seen with MariTide, dose escalation is important. But that shorter period of dose escalation means less revisits to their physician as they need to change their dose, less changes in the prescription as they're going through it. And as a result of that, probably an easier experience being able to get to goal.
And the other thing we're really encouraged by is, from a maintenance standpoint, the ability to potentially look at monthly as well. We think we'll go into monthly, certainly, but then also the ability to go quarterly. What we do know now is that at about 9 to 10 months is average when patients are dropping therapy. And so really about managing obesity is being able to get to that goal and maintain that goal. And we feel MariTide is set up well for that.
Great. No, thanks, Geoff. I couldn't agree more with what you just heard. We've seen in MariTide already very competitive efficacy, reflecting on the data we saw yesterday, tirzepatide versus semaglutide, 20% at 72 weeks. With the latest data on MariTide, we're seeing 20% at 52 weeks with curves that have yet to reach a plateau. As we enter into part two of this study, we're very interested to look at continued weight loss through that period, as well as different maintenance strategies that would allow much less frequent dosing, maybe quarterly, as well as lower doses. So a lot to love about MariTide and its direction.
And we couldn't be more confident in the profile that's rising. Beyond the MariTide portion of the portfolio, I would just three quick bullets, things to keep aware of. Though we're in a bit of a quiet period with olpasiran right now, as Pete mentioned, completing an event-driven phase III clinical trial in Lp(a) as secondary prevention for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease complications. This is one of the last clearly genetically defined, otherwise unmodifiable cardiovascular risk factors, and we have a medicine with real best-in-class potential there.
Second, in inflammation, the CD19 opportunity, which has taken the biotech world by storm. We have two approved assets there with blinatumomab presently used for cancer, and stay tuned for a presentation at this ASH weekend. We have a plenary presentation with blinatumomab and pediatric ALL. Tarlatamab or Imdelltra for small cell lung cancer, the first bispecific T-cell engager in a common advanced solid tumor, now in multiple phase III studies, and then xaluritamig in prostate cancer, which we're so hopeful for in another refractory solid tumor setting.
So between CD19 and its portfolio of opportunity in autoimmunity, between the T-cell engagers now working in solid tumors, and between siRNA, we have three platforms that really can be, I think, quite durably delivering first-in-class assets for very serious diseases. So anyway, I don't want to take any time. I'm looking forward to the questions.
No, I mean, if it were not for the prepared remarks, it probably would have been 90% MariTide. So thanks for.
Now you'd be 97.6.
Right, exactly, exactly. Oh, I want to follow on.
Geoff, I'm sorry. I missed one point. Just shortly before we started this morning, Amgen put out a press release that we're investing an additional $1 billion into North Carolina into our manufacturing facility there. Yeah, that just crossed the wire. I'm sure that the team is on that. But we're excited about that. We're excited about North Carolina. We're grateful for a wonderful, diverse workforce there. We're grateful for the support of the local community. And we're really looking forward to a fantastic drug substance. So you're talking about GLP-1 sort of manufacturing ground zero?
You know, we don't look at our plants that way. We think about our entire network across the globe and optimizing it. Our manufacturing group, led by Arleen Paulino , is just spectacular at that. We're excited about North Carolina and what's going to happen there.
I wanted to ask you something that I think all you guys have mentioned, that the weight loss in the MariTide study continues at 52 weeks. Where would you, what do you think is sort of commercially impactful? And where do you think that could go if you continue to lose weight? Does that add risk? In other words, if you get to 30% and then you start to lose potentially lean muscle, where would you like to see sort of the plateau kind of be from a clinical standpoint?
I'll start with medical, and then maybe you could speak to the commercial opportunity. So quite a lot is known about the association of body mass and health outcomes. It's known at the population level. It's known from outcomes of bariatric surgery. These medicines do a lot more, as everybody knows, than just promote losing weight. Impacts on inflammation, hemoglobin A1c, et cetera. But just focusing on body mass, as you mentioned, clinical benefit begins to arise at about 5% of a change in body mass index.
And that's why we're very proud that the vast majority of patients on this study receive clinical benefit of that magnitude. It turns out that there is no Gaussian distribution where, on the other end, it starts to be less beneficial. We and others in the field, experts in the field, believe that you can derive significant additional medical benefit between 20% and 25% and 30%.
It's for this reason that when we were finally in a position to share these data publicly, which we've been very excited about a week and a half ago, we were able to talk to a lot of investigators in the field that we're working with on our phase III program, that we pay very close attention to their guidances and experiences as we refine the presentation of this medicine for the marketplace. They all said the same thing.
Their immediate reaction was, "Look at the shape of those curves." And the fact that the curves aren't plateauing at 52 weeks for sure predicts that additional weight loss should be expected into part two of the study, which is the second 52 weeks. But moreover, the slope and trajectory of the curves is stable. It's predictable. It's consistent. 140, 280, 420, all delivered significant and steady weight loss. On these clinical trials and in press releases and on stages just like this, we talk a lot about 20 versus 22 versus 25. And those things matter because additional weight loss is additional medical benefit.
And we want to deliver that quickly to the patient. But in clinical practice, what the doctors want is steady and consistent weight loss without a need for a ton of new prescriptions or tweaking and adjusting doses. Maybe endocrinologists like that, but primary care doctors don't like that. And cardiologists just won't do that. And so having a medicine with such simple dosing, to be honest with you, with such stable drug exposure, all reads through to this steady and consistent weight loss. And so I look forward to sharing part two when we have that data and we can really learn where, if ever, this curve starts to taper.
Yeah, and just to add to that, I think part two is going to be really important to answer your question. In that study, we are taking patients that have gone through the 52-week period, those that have lost 15% weight loss, and then re-randomizing them in the other arms. And those arms of understanding what maintenance looks like are really important because, Geoff, to your point, if a patient is continuing to lose weight, we'll know if that patient moves to a lower dose, what's the impact of that, and does that stabilize the weight.
We'll also know for patients that do reach their weight goal, what does it look like from a quarterly standpoint. And we'll also have data on patients that stop completely. How long does the period of weight regain come back? We did see from our phase I trial that there was a long period of time before weight regained. We do expect patients will regain weight if they completely go off therapy. But we'll have a better idea of how long that is and then look at eventually what would happen if they reinitiated again.
Right. Yeah, I guess one of the questions that we've been getting post the data. I mean, you guys are obviously very enthusiastic about it. The data in totality support a major de-risking event. But then the details of it, I think, were maybe less than investors were expecting. Help us reconcile that. Is it that you want to, is it competition? Is it something that you want a little bit more granularity on before you start the phase III in terms of the parameters of the study? I'm just trying to get a sense for the pooling piece of it versus you guys' obvious excitement.
Hey, Geoff, I'm sorry. I have five grandchildren. I read in the book, "If you give a mouse a cookie," and I think our investors and analysts, and I totally understand this. If you give them a cookie, they're going to want milk. If you give them milk, they're going to want a sandwich, so I don't want to jump in here and make light of this. But I think the point is we feel like we gave a really complete top-line data package, and Jay and Susan have both emphasized this is phase II.
And this is a great top-line data package, so having said that, I'll now back out of the way with my little anecdote and allow Jay and Susan to answer this in the serious way we should answer it. I'm going to answer it in a serious way, but I think the message is the same. This was a very thorough presentation of top-line data. I mean, we see top-line data released in this domain all the time with just an efficacy number, no tables, figures, legends, differentiation of data, tolerability data. I mean, this was a 30-minute science presentation. I think it's just shy of a podium presentation. But it isn't a podium presentation.
I mean, that will need to happen in a scholarly venue with the full data set. We sought to include, and I still believe this way about that data set, we sought to include all of the actionable insights derived from the study. These are the same insights that we've used to design phase III around dosing and the use of dose escalation in particular.
These are many of the same insights that drive us to have confidence for a potentially once-a-month or less frequently administered diabetes medicine, which is a longstanding, if not historic, goal of that field, as well as early insights into what maintenance could look like, remarking that every other month dosing produced the same amount of weight loss as every month, so I think in the fullness of time, it'll become clear that the actionable insights are all released, but this science is so exciting for the field that from investigators to analysts to people within our organization, there's a natural inclination to want more and more and more, and that's why we're here to welcome that dialogue.
I wanted to ask you on the, so the part B will have more extended dosing. Would you want to have absolute clarity on that prior to starting the phase III, or would you start multiple phase III's with different doses and strategies?
Thanks for the question. We have all the guidance that we need for phase III clinical investigation from the data set that's in hand. And so part two will be very interesting and informative around the ultimate achievable weight loss in those that continue on their current dose. It'll be very informative about whether a maintenance mindset matters for this field. You never hear about maintenance in this field. But these are chronic conditions. People don't suffer from obesity for 52 or 72 weeks. It's a lifelong condition.
And we believe the properties of our medicine are such that with a low dropout rate and a 90% curiosity to roll over into another year of MariTide on study, that patients are voting with their feet. They're quite happy with this medicine. As we shared that Manhattan plot, there's 51 weeks where patients are essentially without those gastrointestinal symptoms at a target dose. And so with these properties, there's more that we can learn from part two. But none of that learning is essential to conduct the first flight of phase III studies.
Gotcha.
Yeah, the only other thing I would add on the phase III studies coming up. We did announce the MariTide program. In the context of the phase II, which was in chronic weight management, there were some components of it that are really important across any of the programs that we do, understanding dose escalation. We think that we've learned a lot about dose escalation. As Jay has said, it's very clear. We know MariTide needs dose escalation. That'll pull through into those other studies, as well as the metabolic parameters, really seeing those significant impact in LDL, blood pressure, and HbA1c. That also helps us get more information as we move into those other obesity-related conditions too.
And I just wanted to ask you on that too. So I mean, most companies in this space are obesity and diabetes, and the Novos and Lillys of the world have moved on to the related ones. But there are dramatically more that haven't really been addressed, like a lot of cardiovascular conditions, a lot of adjunctive therapies to surgery, et cetera. So I guess the question is, what does the potential for extended dosing mean in those other indications? Or are you just thinking about the differentiation in extended dosing being valuable in just the core obesity and diabetes?
I think the extended dosing can have a profound impact across all the different indications. I mean, think again about maintenance for all of the areas that we're going into. These are chronic diseases in which you need patients to be able to stay on therapy long term and having different options from a convenience standpoint. In many of the areas that we're looking at, there haven't been dosing schedules that we're looking at. For example, in diabetes, it's been an area, type 2 diabetes, that's been under investigation for a long time to try to find a monthly. And now not only is there potential for a monthly, but maybe for less frequent dosing. And we'll need to do the studies to see how that plays out.
And I think you mentioned the semaglutide versus tirzepatide head-to-head. So is that under consideration in a formal phase III is to do a head-to-head versus one of the existing agents?
A key part of our go-to-market strategy is to really understand the performance of this medicine, also to understand its performance as it relates to other medicines in the space, really lean into its differentiated profile. We're in a phase right now where we're in very advanced discussions with regulators about each of the indications that we've prioritized in the MariTide program. So I can't speak too much to it, but can't wait to share the outcome of those discussions that will define our phase III and our regulatory strategy. Looking at these data, as you mentioned, tirzepatide, market leader, 20.2% weight loss at 72 weeks.
We're already at 20% at 52 weeks. I think in that study, if I'm not mistaken, as yet not published, but released in top line, semaglutide was like 13.7% weight loss. Again, 20% weight loss that we're seeing is a very strong and competitive efficacy signal, so we surely would welcome a chance to study this medicine in the context of other established emerging standards of care as relevant to regulators and the need to highlight and reveal the absolute efficacy of the molecule.
Jay, I wanted to follow up on one of your comments. You said that part two is not necessarily needed to start into phase III. But what would you say from a presentation and sort of to get broader scientific sort of buy-in to give you momentum as you start the phase III? Is there some sort of framework you can give us for the presentation or publication or something like that? Well, I mean, I can only speak for myself. There's three things that I'm just very curious to learn about MariTide and part two. This is one of those cases where time just can't move fast enough. I'm so curious about these three things.
One is, where will these smooth and descending curves ultimately terminate? Just how much weight loss is this medicine capable of? We report 20% as an average. You know how averages work. Everyone on this call is sort of a math person. There are some patients that enjoyed significant weight loss on this medicine. Could others with more time enjoy the same? So enduring efficacy. The second is rebound. It's just characteristic of this field, it's characteristic, honestly, of all of medicine that when you drop off of effective therapy for whatever reason, that you can have a recrudescence of your disease.
The rebound on the weekly obesity medicines has been very tricky. Every time this has been reported or studied, as well as real-world evidence will support that the rebound is quite brisk. At our phase I, after three doses, we held dosing as intended on that trial. For 150 days, patients failed to really rebound significantly from their lost body mass. There's a lot I could go into around adipogenic epigenetic memory and why that could be.
Putting all that aside, the long-acting nature, the stable and durable exposure to receptors through a 52-week period, I think there could be something to durability that's unique to MariTide. So those patients randomized to placebo in part 2 will give us that teaching. Then the third is, the dose and schedule required to deliver the weight loss the same as required to sustain it? Wouldn't that be something if we were able to reach four times, six times as many patients by, after a period of time, stably dosed on the medicine, you could drop back to maybe 70 milligrams monthly to maybe 420 milligrams quarterly or something in between?
So I think these three learnings, sustained weight loss, durability of weight loss achieved, and a capacity for a different maintenance mindset, will be really interesting learnings. Now, none of those are important to establish the immediate efficacy of the molecule at target dose. So off we go on phase III as these other data start to cook and deliver insights 52 weeks from now. Last question here from a mechanism standpoint. A mechanism is unique. What is the level of comfort, I guess, that you guys have in the totality? Could the mechanism with more patients, longer follow-up, does that add any risk or uncertainties on, say, tolerability or discontinuations or general adverse event profile of the medicine?
Now with 52-week data, and we have an accumulated and strong safety database, we've treated over 800 patients with this medicine already. And we're just emerging from phase II. So we feel very good about the safety of this molecule. You are right that it's a unique mechanism. I mean, this isn't like we attached two GLP-1 peptides to an antibody core just to make a long-acting GLP. It's an active antibody that inhibits the GIP receptor. If we break it down to the two principal components, agonizing GLP-1 and inhibiting the GIP receptor, I take a lot of comfort from the learned safety of what GLP-1 agonism is in the real world. Thousands of patients are on these medicines, and they're doing great. And that therapeutic benefit is overwhelming and positive. GIP inhibition, well, that's new for us. We're leading in that dimension.
But there we take real confidence from experiments of nature that humans born with variants of the GIP receptor that lead to strongly muted signaling, they're fertile, they reach a ripe old age, they're protected from obesity, and they're protected from cardiovascular complications of obesity. So we infer from the one, the pharmacologic experience is reassuring. And then number two, human genetics is reassuring. A lot can happen in phase III clinical investigation. We approach that study with true equipoise. But from a safety standpoint, we derive a lot of comfort from those two learnings.
Peter, to your comment on manufacturing, so the new announcement today, when you think about down the road, if MariTide is what you guys claim it could be in the commercial setting, and what you're seeing today in the other assets out there from a demand perspective, what's the flex to further expand the facility? What's the ability to use other Amgen facilities around the world from a manufacturing context?
Well, let me give you a few thoughts on that, Geoff. Maybe when I finish, I'll ask Susan to jump in too and talk a little bit about the market, where that's going to go. Because I don't think we think about if, I think we think about when. And we expect this to be really important medicine and currently a potential medicine, but at some point, important medicine in this significant unmet medical need around the world.
When we think about manufacturing, Geoff what we've been saying is Amgen for many, many years has been a leader, maybe the leader in the science of manufacturing. So we think about what's the yield out of the biologicals? In other words, where are we starting from, what base? And how do we do our process development, which we think is world-class?
And how do we put that all together to optimize a network around the world in a way that not just optimizes manufacturing and so forth, but optimizes where we make it and how we ship it around and how we hold inventories and how we make sure that we're trying to meet our objective of every patient every time around the world? And so we think, as I said earlier, with respect to North Carolina, what's the network optimization we want to get to? We're fully committed to the kind of capital expenditures that we need to make.
That's our second capital allocation, our capital allocation hierarchy. First is innovation. So we're going to fund MariTide. We're going to make sure the development is fully interrogated, is investigated. And then secondly, we invest in our business, our CapEx. So the announcement today in North Carolina is important.
As you may recall, we finished a finished drug product plant in Ohio in the first quarter of this year that's almost entirely automated, technologically leading. And we'll continue to push really hard in using technology and artificial intelligence in the manufacturing and the process development activities that we have underway. So we're fully focused on that. We think we're a leader. And I think it goes back to COVID, Geoff, when we had colleagues in the industry who looked to us for some help in terms of manufacturing some of those antibodies to fight the battle against COVID. And there we were.
And we were able to get that done quickly and support our colleagues in the industry and patients. So we're always committed to that. But I think Susan's got some good perspectives on how we're going to integrate manufacturing with where we see the market going because it's the real clinic that's going to drive this demand, we think, at some point.
Yeah. I mean, MariTide is going to fit very well into our standard platform. So as Peter said, we can use the network that we have in place to bring it to market. The other one, I think, Peter, you might have already mentioned, is just from a peptide standpoint, there's significantly less peptide that's going to be required with MariTide just based on the synergistic nature of the molecule as well as the dosing frequency. So you're going to have less peptide that you go in, which some of the other manufacturers have run into, some of the other companies have run into from a supply standpoint.
From a supply standpoint, when we get back down to patients, though, what's going to be really important for us is, and we've said it in the opening remarks, just make it clear is that we are going to come to market with a convenient, handheld, patient-friendly autoinjector, single injection per patient. We have experience in providing devices to patients for many years in many thousands of quantities. So we're well prepared of understanding what the needs are for the patient and how we're designing it on our proprietary device approach, but also making sure that we're really focused on what the patient's going to need.
Right, and I guess last question on the category. When you think about MariTide as an injectable, a long-acting injectable, what are your thoughts on the other segment of the market that is still yet untapped with respect to orals for this category?
Yeah. I think the oral data is still coming out in the market, but I think there's plenty of room in the market for both orals and injectables, particularly that the profiles are going to be different. MariTide, again, providing the ability to get to your weight loss goal. We're not seeing that plateau at 20. I'm not sure if we're seeing orals in that level, but being able to go beyond that in efficacy beyond that, but then also from a maintenance standpoint, a product that provides monthly or potentially quarterly dosing is a really good option for patients in the market, so we see that there's plenty of room for both in there, but we definitely see that MariTide has some unique advantages that none of the other agents really are coming to the market with right now.
Okay. We hope to be relevant in the development of oral obesity medicines as well. And we're hard at work on that in our research labs and have ongoing partnering discussions. But it's fair to say that this mechanism has not translated immediately to highly efficacious and well-tolerated medicines. And so I think that will open up some segment of the market. But the very seriously ill patients who most need these medicines are very well suited by these injectables.
Right. Makes sense. So switching gears, we had Scott Gottlieb here yesterday. There's been a lot of talk about policy, IRA, et cetera, et cetera. Just at a high level, maybe Peter, what is the Amgen kind of positioning for what the landscape could look like looking into next year? Is there an expectation of broad change with regard to IRA or anything related to the biopharma industry?
Well, Geoff, it's a very important question. And what's important to us is our patients are focused on getting their innovative medicines from us. And we're going to be focused on working with the administration, working with regulators as we always have in the most constructive, productive ways. That's our objective. So that's our first and foremost focus. We'll certainly look at what's transpiring and continue, as Jay said, working very closely with regulators, not just on MariTide, but the entire pipeline. That's been very constructive for us over many, many years.
We'll continue to think about where we're manufacturing and making our products around the world, where's the right spot to create the most value first for patients and then for shareholders and for staff. And so we'll be focused on that. We're excited about next year. We think while there may be some changes from a regulatory standpoint, maybe there are changes from a tax standpoint, we're very adaptable. I mean, when the industry had a change in 2018 or so, and as you well know, you've followed the industry for many years, prices, net prices started dropping for the manufacturers like ourselves.
We adapted quickly. So we adapted to that. We adapted to the IRA quickly and the implications of that. One of our key leadership principles is to adapt. We'll be ready to go. We look forward to working with new administration, working with new Congress and the Senate. We're going to do whatever we need to do to get that innovative medicine through development, through manufacturing, delivered, distributed to patients all over the world just as quickly and safely as we possibly can.
Gotcha. Makes sense. Final couple of comments. So you mentioned the ASH meeting coming up. And so maybe give us a preview of the frame, I guess, the data that you guys have and kind of from a commercial perspective, how would you think about it?
Yes. Well, the most exciting presentation that we have at ASH are data in and around our CD19, CD3 bispecific T-cell engager, the first approved bispecific T-cell engager called blinatumomab. This medicine known as Blincito had a big year. We had approvals this year for the use in frontline acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the adult population with or without minimal residual disease. In this field, as you must know, I'm a leukemia doctor. We move in our field as sort of like these generational advances that have ratcheted up the cure rate.
In children, north of 90%. But unfortunately, in adults, where the disease is a little bit different, and we know that kids are stronger than adults, we've been stuck between 40%-60% overall survival. Enter Blincito, which for the first medicine in probably a decade has significantly advanced the sort of core strategy, the multi-year induction, consolidation, and maintenance strategy required to cure ALL. It has ratcheted the overall survival up yet again.
I can't share the outcomes of this study to be presented, but it is a plenary presentation at the ASH meeting that seeks to advance the standard of care of pediatric ALL, and I love that about this company that a lot of scientists in the world, it's hard to get a grant funded sometimes around ALL because it's perceived as a solved problem, but this 10% of children that are still not cured by ALL therapy is a huge unmet medical need, and so we're proud to contribute to that. I look forward to sharing more on the back end of this.
What this means commercially, ALL therapy moves en bloc, and so as you join frontline standard of care, there's improved access and utilization and benefit from, most importantly, this medicine. Our next advance will be to take Blincito, which is delivered by IV continuous infusion, into a subcutaneous route of administration, and those studies are ongoing.
Gotcha. Okay. With that, guys, thanks a lot for your time. Really helpful.
Thank you, Geoff. Thank you, John. It's great to be here, and we're grateful to Citi for sponsoring such an excellent conference. Thank you.
Sure. Yeah.
Thank you.