It's tough, but it'll be there when.
Alrighty, so first annual Citi Global Healthcare Conference. My name is Trevor Davis. I am the U.S. healthcare sector specialist and thrilled to have for our next session Jazz Pharmaceuticals. And with us from the company is Phil Johnson, CFO, as well as Rob Iannone, Global Head of R&D. I'd like to kick it to them for some opening remarks, and then we'll jump into some Q&A.
Great. Trevor, thank you very much to you and Citi for hosting us. A pleasure to be here. Phil Johnson, CFO for Jazz. I'll go ahead and start with some brief comments and kick it over to Rob to talk a bit more about our pipeline, then address the questions you all may have. So first, before we get started, we will have a summary set of comments. We'll provide both prepared remarks and then in the Q&A session today. But for a more fulsome description of our business, as well as the risk factors that affect our business, we'll direct you toward the most recent third quarter earnings materials, including the 10-Q. Also, we may talk about guidance today. If that does come up, we'll be referring to the guidance that was provided as part of the third quarter earnings.
And then to the extent we are talking about non-GAAP financial measures, also in those materials for last earnings, you'll find reconciliations to the corresponding GAAP measurements as well. So at Jazz, we're focused on creating value for shareholders and positively affecting the lives of patients and their families through three main ways. One is through prudent investments to drive appropriate use and uptake of our commercial products. Second, to aggressively advance products that are in development in our pipeline. And then third, to add to our future growth prospects through corporate development efforts. Touching briefly on each of those areas. On the commercial side, really pleased with the momentum that we have. Just posted record quarterly earnings in the third quarter at $1.05 billion, with record quarterly revenues coming from Xywav, Epidiolex, and Zepzelca.
On Xywav, really pleased with continued growth of that brand, even in the face of authorized generic and additional branded competition. Product grew 17% in the most recent quarter, we think underscoring the value that patients and physicians see in a low-sodium product. Epidiolex continues to, on its march towards blockbuster status, 18% growth in the third quarter. We see continued opportunities to grow that product into the future. On the pipeline side, I'll leave most of those comments to Rob, but would highlight recent positive data that we had a top-line press release on of Zepzelca in combination with Atezolizumab and first-line maintenance therapy for extensive stage small cell lung cancer. And the recent approval of Ziihera a little bit before the PDUFA date in the second-line biliary tract cancer.
In terms of corporate development, we have very knowledgeable, dedicated teams both on the corporate development side as well as in search and evaluation, both looking at opportunities in neuroscience as well as opportunities in oncology and are well positioned to act from a financial perspective, having generated about $1 billion of operating cash flow in the first nine months of this year and having $2.6 billion in cash and investments available on the balance sheet at the close of the third quarter. With that, I'll turn it over to Rob.
Thank you, Phil. I would start by highlighting Ziihera, as Phil said, recently approved for second-line biliary tract cancer, and this is the first dual-targeting HER2 bispecific antibody to be approved for biliary tract cancer. The data, in the context of a very poor prognosis disease, the data, I would say, are unprecedented in the label indication for patients who are IHC3 positive with a 52% response rate, with a 14.9-month duration of response, compared to what you would expect with chemotherapy, which certainly would be single-digit response rates and a much shorter duration of response. These data were presented this year at ASCO, and they've already garnered NCCN testing. We do plan a launch call on December 11th that I would invite you to join. We'll go through the data again in detail and be joined by our principal investigator for that trial.
As well, we'll cover some of the launch details. With regard to rest of world and biliary tract cancer, we could have an approval in Europe as early as 2Q of next year. We have a very robust development program around Ziihera now, with three ongoing phase 3, randomized phase 3 trials. One is in first-line biliary tract cancer, which is the confirmatory trial for the approval we just got. Another is in gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. That trial is well underway. While it is an events-driven trial for PFS, our current projections have been 2Q of next year for top-line PFS results and interim overall survival results.
We've also launched and are enrolling into a phase 3 trial in metastatic breast cancer, targeting patients who have progressed on Enhertu, a real opportunity for Zanidatamab, which has shown activity after failure of other HER2 therapies in breast cancer, including Enhertu. Real opportunity to differentiate and establish Zanidatamab as the treatment of choice in metastatic breast cancer for patients who have progressed on Enhertu. And we've also initiated a pan-tumor trial, which has the potential to be registrational. Jumping over to some of our other recent news flow, we were very excited to see the results come in from the IMforte pivotal trial. This was a front-line randomized phase 3 trial of Zepzelca as add-on maintenance therapy to the standard of care chemotherapy induction and Atezolizumab. This was a planned analysis for PFS with an interim on overall survival.
As we've said, we observed not only statistically significant, but clinically meaningful positive results for both PFS and overall survival. We expect this to be practice-changing. We're working with our partners, Genentech, Roche, to rapidly submit a supplemental NDA with the FDA. We expect that to occur in the first half of next year. We will pursue NCCN guidelines as soon as we have a publication to do so. Maybe with that, I'll turn it over to you.
Yeah. So thanks for the helpful overview. I guess a logical place to start is on Ziihera, as you mentioned, recent FDA approval in BTC. So I don't want to front-run your event next week, but just in terms of an infrastructure build-out, can you just walk us through the launch plans for the drug in this first indication? How many reps will you have detailing it? Will this require sort of a meaningful headcount expansion at Jazz? And I guess then also on education, how much heavy lifting do you think there'll be in the field?
Yeah. Happy to start with that. Feel free to add comments, Rob, as you see fit. So second-line biliary tract cancer, this is a very small patient population, very focused number of prescribers as well. So in terms of patient population, we estimate around 3,000 biliary tract cancer first and second-line patients here in the U.S. We'll be able to utilize the existing sales force that we already have for our marketed products in oncology to address the physicians that will be prescribing likely for biliary tract cancer. So there'll be incremental investments, obviously, on the marketing side, but on the sales side, I think we're largely ready to go. I'd say on the medical liaison side as well.
I'd add that when we get to having hopefully positive data coming in the second quarter of next year on first-line GEA and marketing for that eventually for that indication, that also would build on the existing infrastructure we have, probably some very modest additions to be able to market that indication as well. In terms of education, you'd be able to probably comment, Rob, more fully on physician awareness of needs and the data for Zanidatamab treating patients with this condition. We will go ahead and treat the approach to the physicians multifaceted.
Obviously, our sales reps, our medical liaisons use some digital tools as well, and then presence at conferences and interactions with KOLs for them as well to be able to make sure they're fully vetted and understanding the data that we have and the benefit that this product can bring to patients with second-line biliary tract cancer.
I would only add that an advantage to getting the biliary tract approval, in addition to bringing a transformative medication to those patients who desperately needed it, is it gives us a little bit of a head start with prescribers, so it's the same prescribing population for biliary tract cancers it would be for gastric and esophageal cancers. So it gives us a chance to get on formularies at hospitals, begin to educate physicians on the drug itself, the very same physicians who would also be adopting and prescribing in GEA, and as I said, we'll be on the market at the time that we unblind the data. If the data are strong, as we hope they will be, we will seek NCCN adoption as soon as possible, and while, of course, we wouldn't promote off-label, you potentially would see docs relying on NCCN guidance for prescriptions there.
Of course, it will be a supplemental BLA with the FDA, which shortens that review period as well.
And so you have phase three data coming next year in GEA. But at ESMO a few months ago, you guys provided a data update on the phase two, if I recall. So can you just outline the activity for the drug that you saw in that clinical work for this indication? And I guess what gives you confidence that the phase three study will be successful and open up a big expansion opportunity for the drug?
Yeah, of course. So we have a lot of prior data. And I think where I would start in terms of what gives us confidence is around the mechanism of action for Zanidatamab. This is not just another HER2 drug. There's a great publication in Nature Communications really illustrating that by targeting two different epitopes on the HER2 molecule with a bispecific antibody, engineered the way Zanidatamab has been engineered, you really get a unique set of mechanisms of action that's differentiated from other antibodies or drugs in this space. So by targeting two different epitopes, antibodies tend to bind two different receptors and causing significant receptor clustering interference of growth signaling through that pathway. It's also been shown to be highly active from an immune perspective. So its immune effector function appears to be differentiated.
So it's the only HER2 antibody that actually fixes complement and results in complement-dependent cytotoxicity. In addition to ADCC, antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, as well as antibody-dependent phagocytosis, triggers macrophages to kill cells to which the antibody is bound. So all of this results in a drug that is not only highly active in patients like the biliary tract patients who are naive to HER2 treatments, but seems to be active even in patients who progressed on multiple different lines of HER2 therapies. Take, for example, in breast cancer, patients who got both Herceptin and Perjeta, who may have then gotten ADCs like T-DM1 and Enhertu or Tucatinib. We see strong activity. So highly differentiated in that way. And then to your point, beyond the antibody itself and the mechanism of action, we now have two phase 2 cohorts.
Separate studies in front-line GEA run by different companies at different sites across the world with highly congruent data. You reference ESMO, the recent ESMO 2024, where data with zanidatamab and chemotherapy were published showing an 84% response rate, over 18 months' duration of response, progression-free survival that is 15.2 months, and early overall survival showing 64% at 24 months and 59% at 30 months really stands out. High response rates, but the duration of response really stands out, and that translates into PFS. If you look at the randomized phase three trials that have been done in this space, the reference for the standard of care Herceptin chemo ranges from about 6.7 months to 8.2 months. Seeing two different front-line phase twos show promising data like that, one zanidatamab chemo, the other zanidatamab chemo plus tislelizumab gives us confidence. That trial is designed accordingly.
You have standard of care Herceptin chemo, you have Zanidatamab chemo, you have Zanidatamab/Tislelizumab chemo as a second experimental arm.
And then in GEA, maybe you can just outline the differences as the size of the patient population versus BTC, and then also duration of therapy. You mentioned it in a clinical trial experience. How does that compare to BTC?
Yeah. So much larger population with GEA, approximately 63,000, we estimate, U.S., Europe, and Japan. This is a front-line trial where we've said the standard of care is expected to be in that range of high sixes to low eights months, but we're hoping to meaningfully improve that. So you can sort of calculate your duration of therapy based on those estimates from a successful trial.
Maybe moving down the line of expansion opportunities, you mentioned studying the drug in breast cancer. Another significant opportunity that drug has shown activity with HER2-targeted therapies. So maybe you can just walk us through the approach for bringing this drug through the clinic for this indication. And then how do you expect to eventually position the drug within the treatment paradigm? Maybe it's a little bit more crowded than for BTC.
Yeah, absolutely. So of course, HER2 therapies were pioneered for breast cancer. And as a result, there are many approvals in the context of breast cancer. And I do sometimes get that question, "Hey, this is a crowded field. How does Zanidatamab differentiate?" What's really interesting is the way the field has evolved, it's actually created an opportunity for us at this moment in time in that the ADC, T-DXd, or Enhertu is currently approved in second-line breast cancer. And these are patients who would have gotten Herceptin, Perjeta, and a taxane as part of their front-line treatment. You may know there's an ongoing front-line trial with Enhertu. And so the expectation is that Enhertu is fairly well entrenched in second line, is possibly even likely to move into front line.
What's really interesting is that the practitioners we speak to indicate to us that they'll be very uncertain about how to treat patients who've progressed on Enhertu. Remember, this is a Herceptin-based antibody that has a chemotherapy payload. None of the other approved HER2 therapies in breast cancer have been studied in that setting, and so there'll be a gap in the data. Zanidatamab has been studied not only in front-line breast cancer, but in later-line breast cancer for patients who've received a multitude of other HER2 therapies, as I mentioned, and we've shown consistent, we've published on this, and we have some unpublished data, shown consistently that Zanidatamab can induce meaningful responses in patients who have progressed after multiple different HER2 therapies, including Enhertu.
At the upcoming San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, there will be additional data on Zanidatamab in combination with a CD4 inhibitor that will speak to some extent to this because it's a later-line breast cancer population, adding to the data that we've already published in this space. So we have a first-mover opportunity here. The trial's up and running and rolling patients. There's a lot of enthusiasm amongst the global investigators that I've spoken with. And so we think we have an opportunity to be the first to show efficacy in this setting. The way the trial works is a patient comes in, the doctor chooses their chemotherapy, and then they get randomized to Zanidatamab or to Herceptin, a drug that they've already had and progressed on. So we think that's a very promising opportunity as well.
Rob, do you want to mention the additional data we might get from the PAN tumor trial in breast cancer as well?
Sure. So we've set up a pan-tumor trial, which is potentially registrational. The idea is that we could get an indication that says for patients who overexpress HER2 and have no alternative therapies, that Zanidatamab could be used. There are three cohorts. One is a multitude of rare tumors for which HER2 therapies have not yet been demonstrated or proved to be demonstrated effective or approved. We also have a cohort of gastroesophageal as well as a cohort of breast cancer. And the reason is that to get that broad label, you need to demonstrate that it can be active as a monotherapy in any patient who essentially expresses HER2 and doesn't have a treatment alternative. So for gastric and for breast cancer, those are patients who would have received standard HER2 therapies.
Those other cohorts are in patients who essentially have exhausted their HER2 therapies for the basket part of that. It will be naive to HER2. That's another opportunity to expand. We are interested in other areas and exploring them. While we haven't necessarily announced or committed to other investigations, we do think Zanidatamab potentially could go beyond this. The indications I mentioned, we've said could be $2+ billion BTC, front-line gastric breast cancer, pan-tumor. But we think beyond that, there are opportunities. For example, last year at San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, we published a chemotherapy-free regimen of Zanidatamab, Fulvestrant, and Palbociclib in patients who are not only HER2 positive, but also expressed estrogen receptor. These patients are typically treated as if they're HER2 positive, and the estrogen expression is not a key driver for therapeutic choices.
This is an opportunity to really address both of those oncogenic drivers with a rational combination. And those data were quite strong and well received. We think there's potentially an opportunity there. We've had a lot of interest in early-stage disease because Zanidatamab is so well tolerated as a non-chemotherapeutic and can be combined with the most active chemotherapies in a way that is still very well tolerated. There's a lot of interest in early-stage breast cancer, even early-stage gastric cancer. And as you know, we have a collaboration ongoing with I-SPY in early-stage breast cancer, as well as with MD Anderson, also in early-stage breast cancer. So we'll be looking at opportunities there as well. This past ESMO, we not only published the gastric data, but we also published front-line colorectal cancer data, the smaller cohort, but still very, very encouraging.
Again, consistently, no matter where we look with this drug, if patients are overexpressing HER2, whether they're naive to HER2 therapies or they've progressed on them, it's highly active as monotherapy and in combination.
Maybe we could just close the loop on Zanidatamab, and I want to go back on the $2 billion plus total revenue opportunity that you guys have cited. I know that the size of the patient population varies across each of the indications you're going after, and I imagine so does the level of competition, so maybe you can just frame for us how you build out that $2 billion plus projection and what assumptions are embedded in that.
Yeah. So we haven't given specific revenue by each of those various indications. We've lumped those together for the $2 plus billion. Qualitatively, obviously, biliary tract, given patient numbers, would be the smallest of those opportunities. I'd say then you get into the pan-tumor and GEAs being larger opportunities, probably the GEA especially, and then breast, based on the patient numbers, again, depending on the data that we generate, could be a very significant opportunity.
So is it just in those three indications?
It would be in the four, effectively.
Four, yeah. Yeah. Right. Gotcha.
Again, as Rob said, we'll continue to look for ways to develop this molecule to benefit patients and to maximize value for Jazz as well.
Gotcha. So maybe we can pivot to your pretty substantial commercial business. I certainly want to spend some time there. So maybe you can just provide us with, I guess, a high-level state of the union on your very well-entrenched sleep franchise. You mentioned you launched Xywav. It's already annualizing at $1 billion plus, I recall. And IH is driving sort of the next wave of growth there. But there is competition out there as well. So how should investors be thinking about what the sleep franchise means to Jazz today, tomorrow, and years down the line?
Yeah. So certainly a very important franchise for us now. We expect it will continue to be well into the future. As I mentioned earlier, really pleased with how the product has been doing, even with authorized generic competition and another branded competitor in the narcolepsy space. Again, we think pointing to the benefit that patients and physicians see in having a low-sodium oxybate. This is one where there are significant efforts underway to continue to educate physicians, patients, and payers on why this is important, both in narcolepsy and in idiopathic hypersomnia. There's data that show that patients that have those two conditions compared to the general patient population have a much higher risk of cardiovascular events, stroke, heart attack, etc.
I have data that has been published that show that when you go on to a high-sodium oxybate, there's a significant increase within the first six months on new diagnosis, hypertension, again, a risk factor for cardiovascular events. Certainly something that we think you would want to avoid in each of these two patient populations, which is why we've said multiple times we look at all narcolepsy and IH patients as potential patients to be on Xywav with the health benefits and safety benefits that can be conferred by that low-sodium content. We do view IH as the clear driver of future growth. At the end of the third quarter, we had about 3,550 patients we estimate that were taking Xywav for idiopathic hypersomnia. We'd estimate that there are about 37,000 patients here in the U.S. that are diagnosed and seeking treatment.
So continued ability for us to positively affect the lives of more patients as we move forward. Continuing also to educate physicians on why use oxybate in this condition, which is not always extremely clear for them. I've published some data recently, a Duet study showing the positive benefits on a number of the symptoms of IH that you get by taking Xywav, including positive effects on sleep inertia and excessive daytime sleepiness. So we'll look to continue to build out awareness within the IH community and utilization there. Obviously, narcolepsy is one, that there is both current competition and potential future competition coming. We continue to think we'll have a very strong role to play going forward, given the benefits of the product, but we do recognize the uncertainty that a multi-source generic world could bring for the narcolepsy side of the business.
Right. And maybe just following up quickly on IH, and you mentioned the numbers that you put out in 3Q in terms of where you are with penetrating that market opportunity. So I guess, how should we think about the rate at which you can drive incremental market share in IH? Is it a steady linear climb, gradual over time, or is it a different kind of trajectory?
Yeah. We've been adding over the last, probably six quarters, eight quarters or so, roughly 250 patients per quarter, maybe a little bit higher than that when you average out. I don't know at this point in time. We'd love to see more of an inflection and more rapid adoption, but I think from a planning purpose, we probably expect a consistent build of that market over time. Certainly, there are additional trials now ongoing in the space that we think can help to bring awareness of the condition with physicians. It could add incrementally to the pace at which the market is built.
Okay. Maybe we can shift gears to Epidiolex. Over the summer, you shared an update on your phase three study being conducted in Japan. I believe that was for treatment-resistant epilepsies. Clearly not the overall outcome that you wanted, but you did see numeric improvements in the primary and secondary endpoints, and safety seems to remain clean. So I guess, how should we think about what that data means to the overall franchise and also the opportunity within Japan that you've previously called out in the past? But I wonder whether this clinical outcome impacts that in a way.
Rob, do you want to go ahead and start with the PMDA?
Yeah. So remember the context here, in agreement with PMDA, was to provide bridging data in these indications that are already approved globally, the three DEEs that we have, DEEs that we have global approvals for. It's for that reason that we didn't conduct a randomized controlled trial. They were meant to be bridging data. Each cohort had a minimum number of basically single-arm evaluations. Because of that, and we set a threshold, pre-specified a threshold in agreement with PMDA, which is really highly dependent on the type of patients that you enroll. How refractory were they? What are their concomitant meds which can work in both directions? We know we have good synergy with Clobazam, for example. So all of those are factors that would ultimately modify the results that you would see. And you would never know how that compares to a control arm because they were single-arm.
So while we didn't meet the pre-specified threshold, we did see numeric improvements, and we saw a safety profile that was consistent. And on that basis, we think the data are encouraging, and we have plans to present those data to PMDA and hopefully find a path to approval in Japan, which we think would be very, very important for patients there.
Maybe more broadly on the opportunity for the product. Certainly, we see geographic expansion outside of the U.S., including Japan as a source for potential growth. Then here in the U.S., for example, see continued opportunities for growth, not only in the existing patients who are getting treated, but also looking for ways to expand duration of treatment, persistency. We've got a nurse educator program that's up and running, and we're seeing good initial results from that effort. Also seeing great utilization opportunities in adult and long-term care settings. Many adults actually reach adulthood without ever getting a diagnosis, for example, for LGS. We think there's education efforts that are underway that can help with building that part of the market as well.
We'll look for other ways that we can continue to build out the franchise, but feel really good about the persistency of that franchise, longevity of the franchise. We do have ANDAs outstanding. We get questions from investors at times about those cases. As of the last Q, we'd settled seven of those 10 outstanding cases. We're now up to eight of those. So hopefully, we'll have a chance to continue that trend and then maybe at some point speak more fully about sort of where that puts us in terms of expected life for that product without having generic competition. We feel very good about the patent estate that we have. There were 20 Orange Book listed patents, which we would tend to assert, obviously, and look forward to keeping people updated on how we progress with negotiations and discussions with the ANDA filers.
Yeah. I just wanted to take on the point of generic challengers. So I mean, clearly, you're confident in your IP, as you've mentioned. Are there any other challenges that generic entrants face with a pretty unique product like Epidiolex? And do you think that they'll be able to, maybe not all of them, but some of them not get across the finish line in terms of getting their ANDAs approved because of those challenges?
Certainly, it's a complex product. There's a lot of investment that went into various aspects from growing to other aspects of producing the drug product on a consistent basis with high quality. So I wouldn't say it's beyond the scope of what generics can do, but certainly is not a typical generic product.
Gotcha. And then are you seeing any meaningful impact from recent branded drugs that have come into the space?
We really haven't. This is one where polypharmacy is the norm. Probably between three and five different products are being taken by patients. Epidiolex combines very well with products, has a very, I think, well-known, well-characterized, and favorable tolerability and safety profile that makes it ideal to combine with other therapies. So no, we've not been seeing an adverse impact. As I mentioned before, in the most recent quarter, 18% growth of the product. And again, we see polypharmacy continuing and these additional agents potentially helping patients without necessarily detracting from the opportunity for Epidiolex.
Okay. Maybe just moving along to Zepzelca. You recently announced success for your phase three trial in combination use in first-line small cell lung cancer. So maybe you can just walk us through the highlights from that outcome and how can moving Zepzelca into front-line combo use for this population help sort of expand the overall revenue opportunity?
Yeah. Happy to start there. So remember the context is there's about 30,000 patients a year diagnosed with small cell lung cancer. Not all of them reach treatment, unfortunately. So maybe we're counting about 27,000. And then about 70% of those have extensive stage disease, and that's the population we study. What's important to realize is that these patients have a fairly effective induction chemotherapy regimen in platinum, plus etoposide. But as is the case for that combination, patients really can't tolerate that for long. So typically, patients get about four cycles of that, three months. Most patients do pretty well. I mean, there's a small subset, I would say 10% or less, who actually are primarily refractory. Most patients stabilize, get some improvement.
The problem is that despite that and despite the addition of atezolizumab, which was the major advance a few years ago, patients still have active residual disease, and the prognosis is very poor. So the median survival is about 13 months, even with the addition of atezolizumab. So patients effectively have a high tumor burden. They have to stop their chemotherapy, and they're just waiting to progress. And when they do, often they progress so quickly that they can't get the full benefit of subsequent active therapies like Zepzelca. So that's where the idea of switch maintenance comes into play, preemptively treating. And in order to do that, you need a well-tolerated drug, right? Patients are coming off chemo because they've had about almost as much as they can take. So you need something well-tolerated.
They recover, and the trial was designed to randomize between Zepzelca and nothing else. The planned PFS was accompanied by an interim overall survival estimate. It was really put there primarily because we had understood that there could be an approval in the U.S. based on PFS, provided that there was a favorable trend on overall survival. We were very pleased to see that both were stat-sig. While we haven't shown the results yet, I would say both clinically meaningful, and the results are likely to be practice-changing. We're moving very quickly with our partners to submit a supplemental NDA. We've said we would do that before the first half of next year. We'll publish and submit to NCCN for guidelines.
As a result, and maybe I could transition over to Phil, as a result, we think we access a larger proportion of patients because not everyone makes it to second line, and we expect that the duration of therapy will be increased as well.
I think you hit the key points there. And as we get to the data presentation, at that point, it'll become apparent, at least in the study, how many cycles, for example, patients received. And therefore, I think analysts and investors can begin to maybe translate that into their models of what they think that could mean for revenue. Certainly, this does upgrade the revenue potential, given that we'll be affecting a larger number of patients likely and with longer duration of therapy.
I think we have time for one last question. I've been following the story for well over a decade now, since the early days of you guys introducing Xyrem. But you've been very active on the business development front in terms of bringing in new assets to both the commercial and pipeline franchises. So I guess, what are your latest thoughts on M&A from here? What capacity do you think you might have in continuing to build out the pipeline? And how should we be thinking of sort of any particular areas of focus that maybe aren't in today or you could have some interest in?
Yeah. I'm seeing we're less than a minute, so I'll try to hit those points really quickly. So certainly, corporate development will continue to be a main focal point for Jazz as how we've built the business, and we intend to continue to build the business primarily going forward. We will be looking in neuroscience, oncology, and then other rare diseases that would build on and leverage the capabilities that we have. I would say in terms of capacity for both M&A and licensing, both of those would be on the table. It's multiple billions of dollars that we've got that we can put to work. I'd say ideally, we'd build out each of the verticals we're in, including maybe some additional areas we're not currently in, to continue to diversify our revenue base, which the company has done extremely well over the last five to six years.
We will look for those opportunities to significantly improve patient care, focus call point, leveraging our footprint not only here in the U.S., but ex-U.S., maybe pretty disciplined in our approach and how we do that. But hopefully, you'll be seeing some announcements from us in the coming months and quarters.
Great. Well, thanks, guys, for joining us, and thank you all for joining us as well.
Thank you, everyone. Appreciate it.