All right, we're just right about at time, so let's get started. Welcome to day three of our healthcare conference. My name is Asad Haider. I'm the US Pharmaceutical Analyst here at Goldman Sachs. I'm very, very pleased and privileged to have the Bristol-Myers team over here, Chris Boerner, Chairman and CEO, and Adam Lenkowsky, Chief Commercial Officer. Chris and Adam, welcome, and thank you for being with us. It's great to be here.
Thank you.
So I guess, you know, just let's start with a big picture question, because this is something that we're really asking all of our companies just to sort of check the box and get it out of the way. That has to do with the external operating environment, policy-related uncertainties that have been bearing down on the pharmaceutical sector. You know, we've been hearing from companies all week on how some of the conversations with the administration have at least directionally been moving in the right direction, although caveated with the fact that it's still very early and we don't know where this is all going to land. Maybe, Chris, just talk to us about how you're thinking about MFM in the context of your own conversations and interactions with Washington, DC.
Sort of what's the mood out there and what are the range of outcomes that you think could happen?
First of all, it's great to be here. We are obviously engaging with the administration. We've been engaging with the administration since January. I'd say we're having constructive discussions. I'm obviously not going to get into the specifics of what we're discussing in our individual conversations. I don't think that would be appropriate. If I just step back and say how I frame the conversations generally with the administration, I would say, if you go back and look at the executive order, when the president announced the executive order on pricing, what did he say? There were a number of things that he focused on that we actually have a lot in common and agree with. First of all, he highlighted that countries outside of the United States are not paying their fair share for research and medicines coming out of the U.S. We agree with that.
Frankly, we applaud this administration as one of the first, really, in recent memory to say, we're going to actually use the power of the presidency and tariff policy to begin to engage with this industry and try to make meaningful movement outside of the U.S. on pricing. We agree there. He highlighted the fact that the U.S. system is very complicated. In fact, multiple times he talked about the role that middlemen play in the United States. It's helpful as an aside to remember that $0.50 of every dollar paid for a branded medicine in the United States goes to somebody who was not involved in the highly risky endeavor of researching and developing that medicine. Again, that's an area of strong alignment with.
As an industry, and certainly as a company, we're going to continue to engage on ways, as we have been for years, to bring the cost of medicines for patients down in the U.S. There is a lot of room for constructive engagement, the type of engagements we've been having. Having said that, we've also been very clear for some time that importing failed policies from outside of the U.S. is not something that we support. Policies from countries that have less access to innovation, that it takes longer to get, where they ration medicines, we don't think those are good policies for the U.S. We are going to continue to be direct on that regard as well. So far, the engagements we've had with the administration have been constructive.
Should we be expecting any kind of an update this week on the 30-day mark?
Look, I do not think it is a useful exercise for me to try to predict what is going to happen when. What I would say is that conversations that we are having continue, and those conversations are constructive at this point.
OK, and maybe just to finish up on the external environment and tariffs, you put out an announcement via Stat News article on potential for $40 billion of US manufacturing and R&D investment over the next five years. Maybe just double-click on the evolution of how that came about, just given that it wasn't a discussion point on your earnings call just a couple of weeks earlier.
Obviously, we've been looking at investments across research and development, IT, manufacturing, which is what was included in that $40 billion projection of investments. Some of those were things that had been on the table that we were considering. Some of those were things that, depending upon the policy evolution, would be additional investments. That is the way we characterized it at the time. What I would say, if you just step back, as has always been the case at the company, we are going to make investment decisions, whether in terms of programs, resources, or core infrastructure, that reflects the needs of the business, the economic environment we have, and certainly government policies. We felt comfortable that as we looked forward five years, those are the types of investments we could predict in the U.S.
Perfect. Thank you. Let's shift to just capital allocation. Obviously, starting with the BioNTech partnership, congratulations on the deal.
Thank you.
Very exciting. Clearly, a lot of excitement about the PD-L1/VEGF bispecific as a potential new frontier in oncology. I guess just talk us through how you landed on this asset specifically and the price tag. Maybe just talk us through, help us understand the deal structure and the reason for the staged payments that you've structured into this deal. How do you think about quantifying the size of the opportunity, given the total consideration of the deal could be up to about $11 billion?
Yeah. Let me start, and then Adam, you should chime in.
Sure.
Look, we've been following this target and the science related to this for some amount of time. What do we know about it? We know that the data that's emerged across companies, including BioNTech, is quite exciting. There is a real potential here, if the data continue to evolve, that this is going to have a meaningful impact on a number of difficult-to-treat tumors. Those include tumors like lung cancer and triple-negative breast cancer, just to name two. We felt that as this evolved, when you look at the overall dynamics at play, and notably the number of potential competitors who could be in this space, it was an area that we felt we wanted to try to get into, but we wanted to be in a position to be first or second. That really framed how we thought about the opportunity here.
That is precisely what we have with the partnership that we announced at ASCO. This is an exciting target. BioNTech has a great scientific perspective here. We applaud them for getting in early on this asset. We are very excited to have it as a 50/50 commercialization co-development arrangement. I think there are real synergies between these two companies. I think we have a real potential to be first or second across multiple tumors. That provides a significant opportunity, not only for the company, but to help a lot of patients.
Adam?
Yeah, just adding on to that, we're very excited about this partnership. We had said that business development was a top priority for the company. We have now almost a two-decade experience in leadership in the immuno-oncology space. This is a great strategic fit for our company, and I think a good strategic fit as well for BioNTech. We're excited to work urgently to bring this to market, as Chris said, to be first or second is critical. It's obviously a key learning from the experience we've had with OPDIVO. That's what this opportunity will bring. In terms of the deal structure, as you know, it was a $1.5 billion upfront with $2 billion in milestone payments, so roughly $3.5 billion upfront, up to $11 billion. That $11 billion really is largely around sales milestones and regulatory milestones.
If we get to an $11 billion outcome, we're going to be thrilled because we will deliver what we hope to deliver with this asset, and that's transforming the cancer landscape with BNT327. As far as the opportunity here, we have a broad CDP that we are working on with BioNTech. We've got a number of phase three studies in flight today. We're going to leverage our commercial and development capabilities that we've built now for years to accelerate those studies. We think we have an opportunity to grow what today is about a $50 billion landscape with novel, novel combinations, looking at not just areas like Chris mentioned in lung cancer and besting standard of care, but also expanding beyond tumors that we've seen that are immunosensitive today.
On the point of being first or second in oncology, you've made this point a few times, Chris, that of the value of sort of being ahead. You've talked about this acceleration strategy with the BioNTech compound. Maybe just, do you see scope to potentially leapfrog where our venetoclax map is?
Obviously, we're going to move as quickly as we can. We think there's a real opportunity across multiple tumors for us to be either in a first position, and if we're not in a first position, to be second. We're going to do everything we can to prosecute these programs with high quality, but also recognize that this is a highly competitive space. We genuinely believe, and this is based on the experience we've had with OPDIVO and KEYTRUDA in the IO space, that the vast majority of the value that will accrue in this class is going to go to those agents that are either in a first or second position. It's what we've seen in IO, and we would see no reason it would be different here, especially in light of the number of players potentially in the space.
It's interesting to note the day we announced the deal, that morning the teams got together and began working through exactly how we were going to help accelerate ongoing programs and initiate the programs that we've agreed to as part of our clinical development plan.
I just want to spend one more minute on this, just given how topical it is. Adam, for you, just given that these drugs are going to be launching in a world of biosimilar, OPDIVO and KEYTRUDA, I mean, what's the level of differentiation that needs to be seen, both from a regulatory and FDA perspective, as well as from a payer perspective?
It's a great question. I mean, I see this market shifting twice, if you will. I think the first shift that we're about to see is the shift in formulation. As you know, we've launched OPTIVO Qvantig, and we expect to see additional subcutaneous formulations moving. We've talked about shifting roughly 30%-40% of our current IV business over to OPTIVO Qvantig by 2028. We'll see a significant portion of the business, I think today, in PD-1, PD-L1s, moving from IV to subcu, leaving less for biosimilar encroachment. I think the second piece, though, is when we see the data that reads out from PD-1, PD-L1, VEGF, and the superiority that will be necessary in order to get into the marketplace. Again, beating standard of care in the oncology landscape is important, particularly when you look at overall survival.
We've seen a significant PFS benefit already across a host of tumors. I think when that comes to pass, we will see fairly rapid conversion over to these new modalities. We're excited that, as Chris mentioned, and I mentioned, being first or second is so critical in order to maximize the opportunity I think we have at hand.
OK, perfect. Maybe just staying high level, big picture, back to you, Chris, just on the broader M&A and BD strategy in the context of the economics of this deal. M&A was obviously framed as a top priority on your first quarter call. Maybe just give us an updated ranking of capital allocation priorities, as well as maybe any comments on just your firepower.
Yeah, I mean, BD continues to be an important priority for the company. We've always sourced innovation at Bristol, both internally and externally. That's going to continue to be the case. In terms of the areas we're interested in, I would say we continue to be focused on our core therapeutic areas. This is certainly a great example of that. Oncology is an area we know well. We know the IO space, having brought IO to market, and the only company to have three distinct targets in IO. We would be looking to do things that make strategic sense, like the BioNTech deal. We'd be looking for opportunities for us to certainly continue to drive value for the company and for shareholders. That's a prerequisite, of course. The science needs to make.
The only thing that we have added to that criteria list is to say we're looking for opportunities to accelerate growth as we exit this decade. That continues to be the North Star for how we're thinking about rewiring the company and focusing our efforts. We are going to look for those opportunities as well. Business development remains a top priority. We have the ability, thanks to the fact that we've been very financially disciplined over the last number of years, we've got financial capacity to engage where it makes sense.
Any numbers around that in terms of quantification?
Look, I think the way we look at it is we've got the financial horsepower to be able to engage in deals that make sense for the company. Those could be anything from partnerships, like the one we announced with BioNTech, to potentially M&A, but nothing beyond that. Our focus continues to be really focused on driving the business we have today, prosecuting the pipeline that we have, and where it makes sense, bringing in additional opportunities to grow the company.
On the cost-cut side, Chris, this is another sort of operational efficiencies or something else that you've been championing. I guess in the context of the $40 billion in manufacturing commitment and now this deal with BioNTech, just frame to us how this all fits into the broader kind of cost-cutting calculus.
Yeah. Look, the announcement that we made this year of $2 billion in efficiencies, those were independent of the thinking around this opportunity. Those are still very much on track. We'll be able to deliver on that. Remember, when we announced that, part of that was a financial exercise. I would step back and frame that more broadly, which is to say we are in the process of rewiring the company. That means becoming a much more operationally efficient company, to be much more disciplined in how we operate, and ultimately to become more agile as an organization. If you look at kind of the world that we're in in biopharma, it's one where the level of competition is going to be increasing. You can expect that over time.
I think there's going to be a higher premium placed on the organizations that are financially disciplined in how they operate. We're getting ahead of that. This is a perfect opportunity for us to do it. That's how I think about the $2 billion. With respect to the financials on this deal, we obviously have non-IPR and D that we'll have a charge against. We'll talk about the additional financials of this deal when we get into the Q2 call.
Perfect. All right, let's move to the product side and zoom in on some of the key products. Adam, COBENFY, obviously something that's very topical right now. Investors are focused on sort of that launch. It's experienced a bit of a clinical setback with the ARISE study. As we look at Scripps now deep into the second quarter, the new prescriptions certainly seem to be moderating to some extent. Why is that? Has there been any impact from ARISE in terms of what you're seeing with prescribing with neuropsych specialists on the ground?
Yeah, let me just take the second piece first and just maybe take that off the table around ARISE. Obviously, the ARISE study right out was not quite the result that we had hoped for. There were certainly some meaningful and notable results that came from this study. Clearly, a significant portion of patients in that study derived benefit. There had been nothing approved in the adjunctive space to date. We are continuing to interrogate that study. The safety profile looked very good. We want to better understand that study and why some of the patients did not respond versus the patients who had a robust response. When I think about the impact in the landscape today, it has zero impact. The awareness of that study is very low with the community psychiatrists.
The only physicians who really are aware of that study to date have been the investigators. They are asking the same questions, and we're working with them to better understand the results of the study. The ARISE study has no bearing on the uptake of the brand in the short term or in the long term. We did not ascribe any sales to an adjunctive use of the product. That said, COBENFY is a critically important product for the organization in the near term and in the long term. The launch is tracking against our expectations. When I think about what's going well with the launch, number one, we've surpassed 30,000 TRX to date. That's ahead of any recently launched place. What I look at and look for from a week-to-week basis is how we're doing in driving and increasing the number of prescribers.
Driving breadth of prescribing is the most important factor for any launch because you need to have a broad base. We're tracking ahead of our own expectations as well as external analogs. The feedback from physicians has also been very positive to date, particularly around the efficacy profile and most notably the cognitive benefits that excited us about the asset and how unique that product is in the marketplace where there's been nothing for three decades in the space. That said, it's going to take time to continue to increase the number of prescribers, drive breadth and depth of prescribing, getting doctors to break that inertia and that kind of habit of using a generic D2 in the marketplace. We've got a very robust plan in place right now in the field organization.
We'll be upsizing our teams in the near future as well to make sure we've got the right reach and frequency. The other question that we typically get now is around how do you switch? What's the best way to switch? We've got a study in place right now to help inform physicians on what's the best way to switch and manage some of the adverse events that could manifest with using two products at once. The feedback that we've heard from the prescribers, the feedback we've heard from KOLs, and most importantly for patients have been very positive. Our focus is continuing to accelerate the launch, which still is in the early innings. We feel very good about where we're going to be at the end of this year.
Are you still confident in the ramp you've talked about in the second half of the year?
We do. We've got good access now in place. We're going to continue to drive commercial access, getting more and more successes, getting more physicians to write. Yes, we do believe we'll see strong uptake in the back end of the year.
I guess looking forward to the ADEPT trial in ADP, how are you thinking about that opportunity in Alzheimer's psychosis? Any update on timing and any sort of high-level framing on what would constitute success in that trial? What does it need to hit?
As you know, we have three studies in Alzheimer's disease psychosis: ADEPT 1, ADEPT 2, and ADEPT 4. Three shots on goal here. Clearly, this is an important opportunity for patients and for the company. It's a very sizable opportunity, about six million patients with Alzheimer's disease. About half of those suffer from hallucinations and delusions. We look forward to the readout of ADEPT 2 in the back end of this year. What also gives us a lot of encouragement around these readouts is what we've seen from the open label study from ADEPT 1. We're very excited about what we're seeing around reduction in hallucinations and delusions. We look forward to sharing those data over the coming months. It gives us increased confidence around the three studies that we have in Alzheimer's psychosis.
Remember, we're also starting seven new phase three studies. A number of them are in the Alzheimer's domain: Alzheimer's agitation, Alzheimer's cognition, beyond Alzheimer's psychosis, as well as bipolar disorder, irritability associated with autism, as well as a new formulation, which will be an LAI that we'll launch in the back end of the decade. We essentially have the opportunity to have a data readout every single year from now to the end of the decade. We believe that this will be a meaningful contributor to growth for the company in the back end of the decade and beyond.
The way we step back and look at the transaction to get COBENFY, what did we assume? We assumed that we would have a meaningful opportunity in schizophrenia and that we would have a meaningful opportunity starting in Alzheimer's disease with the initial indication in psychosis. Our interest in that space actually goes even further back to the original work that was done by Lilly, where they saw a benefit in Alzheimer's. There were some toxicities. The brilliance of what Karuna did was combining Trospium and finding the right engineering to be able to engineer out some of those toxicities, but also keep and preserve the benefits that were seen back in the 1990s from that Lilly work. What we see with COBENFY in market today, we've got a very strong launch off the bat.
We've got very good feedback from physicians in terms of what they're seeing on positive symptoms, negative symptoms, and as Adam mentioned, the cognitive benefits, which again aligns to what we saw in that early Lilly data. What we have now is a number of programs that either will begin reading out or that will be initiating to ensure that we can maximize the opportunity beyond schizophrenia. We're incredibly excited about the potential that we have with COBENFY. It's a nice opportunity for us to reenter the neuropsych space. Of course, we've got a neurodegeneration portfolio that's a bit earlier on in the pipeline.
OK. Let's maybe shift to OPTIVO Qvantig. I guess maybe just starting with sort of this debate about potential inclusion of Sub Q formulations in IRA negotiations by the latest CMS updates. What's Bristol's position on that? What would be the impact if Qvantig is included along with OPTIVO in the negotiation?
Thanks for the question. We're in the midst of the commentary period right now. We feel very strong about the clinical benefits that OPTIVO Qvantig brings to physicians and physician practices, to patients, and to the entire health care ecosystem. We feel strongly that OPTIVO Qvantig should be excluded from the IRA negotiation. I'm not going to speculate on the result of that. What I can tell you is that we look forward to sharing the commentary and also working with the administration to clearly demonstrate the benefits that OPTIVO Qvantig brings to patients and physicians.
Are they clinically different?
In terms of the two?
Yeah.
Look, I think one of the things that we're really excited about and hearing back from physicians early on is, number one, the ability to administer in office in a three-minute infusion versus a 30-minute infusion, saving time for physicians, nurses, and ultimately using the product in the community where we see about 80% of the business. In terms of the safety profile, the safety profile has been excellent in the real-world setting. We're also seeing efficacy that's at least on par with what we see with the IV. We have shared this in part of our commentary along with other data that we have in-house. I know Halozyme, who have been our partners in this formulation, has also shared their commentary. These are dual moieties. Again, very separate mechanism here that we see with the IV.
Again, we feel good about the arguments we're putting forward.
I think if you step back and look at it, you've got real physician benefit. You've got real practice benefit, real patient benefit, most importantly. The FDA has weighed in, this being a distinct product. Let's remember, if you look across multiple companies, there's a lot of innovation taking place in this space precisely because of the benefit it brings to patients and practices. I think we're making it very clear the dampening of innovation that would take place if you ended up seeing the type of proposal that was put forward here. We're going to be aggressive in how we communicate that to the administration.
Just before we leave that topic, Adam, any updated thoughts on the launch now midway through the year? What gives you confidence that the J- code in July is actually going to lead to an inflection?
Yeah, I'm really pleased with what we're seeing in the early days of the launch. As I talked about, we are seeing good uptake in the community, roughly 80% of the prescribers in the community, as we had expected. We are seeing good breadth of accounts adopting OPTIVO Qvantig, making that a preferred formulation in their respective either community practice or even in the academic centers. The patient feedback has really been strong and feeling that they're not tethered to an IV. Some of the quotes we've got back from patients is, "I don't feel like I have cancer because I can go out and do the things I want to do." The last piece I'd mention is kind of the breadth of tumors that the product's been used across. It's not just one or two. We're seeing use across a host of tumor types.
We're encouraged with what we're seeing today. As you mentioned, it's out of the J- code. We expect July 1. What that will do is really, I think, inflect the business when you give that greater certainty of reimbursement to community oncologists. Every new part B oncolytic launches with a temporary J- code. Come July 1, we should have our permanent J- code in place. We expect to see that really take off post July 1.
OK, perfect. Let's talk about CAMZYOS. That tracked very well in the first quarter. You doubled sales versus the prior quarter. I know it's early. What can you tell us about how that launch has been progressing? I guess longer term, going into next year, how are you thinking about the emerging competition?
Yeah, so pleased with the performance of CAMZYOS. We have established a very robust set of patients who've been prescribed CAMZYOS since launch. Roughly 15,000 patients have been prescribed the product. Similarly to how I described COBENFY, the feedback from patients and physicians has been truly remarkable. Patients are going to be on this product for many, many years just because they're feeling great. They're doing things now that they had been unable to achieve before they were on their treatment. As we're gathering more patients quarter after quarter, as you know, back in March, we had a label update to loosen the burden of ECHO restrictions, moving that to every Q6 months here. That has already started to bear fruit in terms of allowing physicians to treat more patients in the COEs.
We've also started to see patients being treated more frequently in the community cardiology offices, which is a core part of our strategy, as well as seeing the diagnosis rates start to increase. All those factors have been contributing to a very strong performance over the last several years for CAMZYOS. As it relates to the competition, we've been preparing for the competition for quite some time. We'll be prepared when it comes to market. We expect that to happen sometime late this year or early next year. We feel really good about the position that we have and the leadership that we've had now for multiple decades in the cardiology space, starting with Plavix to Eliquis to CAMZYOS and hopefully with Milvexian data readout. I feel great about where we are with CAMZYOS. It's going to be a very big product for the company.
Great. Let's maybe shift to cell therapy. Breyanzi and Abecma, just help us mark to market the state of the uptake. Is there growing availability and sort of branching out beyond centers of excellence? What innings are we in for these products specifically?
Yeah, again, I think we're still in the relatively early innings. When you look at where we were with Breyanzi at the launch to where we are today, I think it's almost unrecognizable, quite frankly. I mean, our supply team has done a phenomenal job. It certainly has been a complex journey. Where we are today, we have significant supply, adequate supply to treat the patients in the United States. We are expanding more broadly outside of the U.S. We showed in Q1 150% growth versus prior year. As you probably know, we have surpassed YESCARTA as the number one CD19 directed CAR-T in the United States.
Our strategy is continuing to drive market share leadership within these CAR-T centers of excellence, as well as because of the unique and differentiated adverse event profile that Breyanzi brings to patients, allowing patients to be treated in the outpatient setting. We see now about 40% of the use in the outpatient setting. There is a lot of interest that we are starting to hear from some of the large oncology practices about wanting to use Breyanzi in the outpatient setting. As you know, last year, we also had a number of indications added too. We have the breadth of indications that are greater than the competition there. We are starting to see not just leadership in LBCL, but in areas like second, third line follicular lymphoma, in CLL. We presented data in marginal zone lymphoma.
Mantle cell lymphoma is an indicated in the U.S. today. So we feel great about where we are with cell therapy and the leadership we have there and where we're headed with our best-in-class product in Breyanzi.
My last question on the growth portfolio, and then I do want to talk about the pipeline, is just quickly on Reblozyl. Obviously, that's been a great growth product. What keeps the momentum going? I mean, is it new indications? Is it market growth? Or is it something else?
Yeah, it's the new indications that we have launched. Now, we launched a commands first line study now going on two years ago come this August. What we have been seeing very consistently is market share increases from the first line RS negative. We very quickly were able to get over 70% market share in the RS positive. That represents about 25% of the potential. The large piece of that business is in the RS negative. That's been the team's focus in growing in the RS negative, largely the EPO less than 200, where the untapped opportunity has been rapid switch, where it's being used in a second line post ESA. That also has contributed to the growth. Plus, we're starting to launch more broadly outside of the United States.
We've got broad label in Europe and some of the broadest labels in Japan, where the indication is not just in transfusion dependent, but also in non-transfusion dependent. We also will be launching in China as well. We've got exciting opportunities to grow there. Taken together, we expect to see continued growth for Reblozyl over the next several years and into the 2030s.
OK, perfect. Let's maybe spend the last few minutes just talking about the pipeline. You've flagged over a dozen upcoming pipeline milestones in the next 12 to 24 months. Just maybe rank the top two to three for us in order of your level of confidence on excitement as it relates to the opportunity and, more importantly, the impact to your business.
Maybe Adam can start and then I'll.
Yeah, so I've been with the company, as you know, for over two decades. And we've never had the pipeline that we have today and the number of readouts that are really right in front of us. You can start to see with our growth portfolio that we've talked about, coupled with the pipeline, what the future of the company is going to look like. In fact, we talk about 10-30-30, which 10 new products, potentially 30 new indications launched by 2030. Really exciting opportunities. I'll start. I mean, for me, I'm going to start with COBENFY because I'm really excited about what the opportunities that COBENFY can bring and the robust growth that we expect there in these seven new studies from Alzheimer's disease to bipolar disorder all the way to autism. Of course, we still have significant growth yet to achieve in schizophrenia.
The other asset that I'll mention is Milvexian. We're excited about the two data readouts we expect next year in ACS and secondary stroke prevention. In 2027, a readout in atrial fibrillation. That is really important for the company growth and sustained leadership in cardiovascular. We're very pleased with what we've seen to date. When we look at the blinded data from AFib, we've seen nothing like what Daiichi had seen in their study. We expect to see a low bleed rate, a rate that's comparable to Eliquis, but also lower events. Excited for those important data readouts. I don't know, Chris.
Yeah, I mean, I would just start with Milvexian. I think Adam's covered COBENFY. Remember, in atrial fibrillation, about 40% of patients are either not getting or underdosed with respect to a factor Xa. So there's a lot of opportunity in that opportunity. I would start with Milvexian. I would say, let's remember, we've got IBER and MEZI that will read out in multiple myeloma in the coming year or so. Those are going to be potentially large opportunities as oral therapies with the potential to be partially replacing of where we were with Revlimid and Pomalyst. Sleeper that I'll throw in there, which we have not been talking a lot about, is glofitamab. I actually started my career in lymphoma. If you look at the mainstay of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, it's still a rituximab-based therapy.
We have an opportunity with glucotamide, given the data that we've seen so far in early line lymphoma, to again be a transformative therapy there. That is exciting. Last but not least, and I know we're at time, is earlier data. The opportunity we have with next generation CD19XT, particularly in the data we're seeing in lupus, is incredibly exciting. Obviously, that continues to hold out. We think we have a transformative therapy there, starting in lupus, but potentially in other autoimmune diseases. There is a lot happening, as you've said. As we've reiterated, we're at the beginning of a wave of potential assets that, along with the business we have today, is going to really shape what the company looks like as we exit this decade.
Terrific. Thank you both very much.
Thank you.
Great conversation. Covered a lot. Really appreciate having you both here.
No, it's great.
Thank you.
Thank you.