Great. Good morning, everyone. My name's Jess Fye. I'm a biotech analyst at J.P. Morgan, and we're continuing the 43rd Annual Healthcare Conference this morning with Jazz. First, you're going to hear a presentation from the company, and then we're going to go into some Q&A. If you have questions in the room, you can raise your hand. Someone will bring you a mic, or you can send them to me on an iPad. But with that, let me turn it over to Jazz's Chair and CEO, Bruce Cozadd, please.
Thank you, Jess, and thank you all for being here. Just a note before I start: my right hand has a tremor. If my right hand shakes, I'm not nervous. If my left hand shakes, I'm nervous. So keep an eye on that. Keep an eye on the left hand. I am thrilled to be here. This is my 34th consecutive J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference, the last 22 representing Jazz Pharmaceuticals. And as some of you may have seen, I did announce last month I will retire as CEO at some point later this year. And I have to say it's been a real privilege to lead this company from startup in 2003 to an integrated global biopharmaceutical company with over $4 billion in revenues in 2024.
And I think the thing I'm most proud of is the impact we're having on patients and really being a great place to work for our employees. And while I'm excited about my next chapter, I have to also say I'm really excited about Jazz's next chapter. I will be staying on as chair of the board, and I am confident we have the right strategy. We've got the right commercial portfolio. We've got the right R&D engine. We've got the right experienced leadership team. So now it's my privilege to share with you a little bit of our progress in 2024 and our prospects moving forward. This is the exciting slide you're all waiting to read in detail: our forward-looking statements. I will make forward-looking statements today. Realize those are subject to risks and uncertainties that could make results turn out to be different.
Please see the forward-looking statement language in the 8-K we submitted yesterday morning, as well as our SEC filings. I'll also point out that guidance, if I mention guidance today, is as of the date we gave it on November 6th, with the exception of our revenue guidance, which we did reaffirm yesterday. And I'll talk about that in a minute. So at Jazz, our purpose is to innovate to transform the lives of patients and their families, and we do that by focusing on developing life-changing medicines for people with serious diseases, really by developing and commercializing highly differentiated products. All the pictures you'll see in this slide deck are our actual patients who inspire the work we do.
We have really transformed Jazz over the past few years, and I think we're exceptionally well positioned to drive long-term shareholder value and growth, really building on our three core areas of expertise. First, our pipeline, and we've got some really exciting developments coming up in our pipeline, particularly in the case of zanidatamab and Zepzelca, both of which have indication expansion opportunities. On the commercial side, we've got a great portfolio of products. We are a leader in sleep medicine. We are a leader in epilepsy, and we have a growing oncology business highlighted by our most recent launch of Ziihera, the first and only dual HER2-positive bispecific antibody, which was recently approved for second-line HER2-positive biliary tract cancer in the US.
In addition to our pipeline and our commercial businesses, we have a strong corporate development effort and track record of putting capital to good use to expand our offerings. This helps us with sustainable growth and shareholder value creation and really sits on an underpinning of our strong financial position and our position as a partner of choice. All of this is built on top of operational excellence and a disciplined strategic approach to capital allocation. So just a few words about the transformation of the company, and we chose here to look at the period 2018 to 2024. I might remind you that in 2018, we had $1.9 billion in revenue, 74% of which came from a single product in Xyrem. Over the next three years, we acquired or launched five new products, thereby significantly diversifying our revenue.
If we look at this whole period of 2018 to 2024, you can see that we had 11 products approved, six of them in oncology. We completed a number of transactions, which has left us in 2024 with a much more diversified portfolio of products that meet real unmet needs in serious diseases, including the recently launched Ziihera. If you look over this period of time, we've more than doubled our revenue from $1.9 billion to over $4 billion. You'll notice that slice at the top that is Xyrem, inclusive of royalties on AG Xyrem, is down to 11% of revenue as of the third quarter, our most recent quarter.
During this time, we've completed a number of strategic transactions, which I think of as building blocks for our business, starting with the Zepzelca transaction, which was rapidly accretive and has positioned us well in the second-line small cell lung cancer with an opportunity to expand that indication. GW was truly a transformative acquisition, bringing us both Epidiolex and expanded R&D capabilities, and then more recently, the zanidatamab transaction gave us our most exciting R&D asset. The success we've had with these past transactions has positioned us well, I believe, to do more transactions in the future. Our focus is adding to our neuroscience business, both in sleep and epilepsy, adding to our oncology business, and perhaps looking at opportunities in rare or orphan spaces that would also build on the skill sets we've proven out at Jazz. We look for products that will have long durability.
We look for products that will be efficient to commercialize. And we're open to a large range of transaction sizes. We've done small transactions historically. We've done large transactions. We may choose to spread risk over a number of smaller transactions, but we are open to doing a significant transaction. And while I mentioned my transition this year from the CEO position, I assure you we will not pause our efforts to execute on our strategy, including corporate development during this year. If I zoom out even a little bit more on revenues, I do want to point out that we reaffirmed yesterday we will hit our total revenue guidance for 2024, including our specific revenue guidance for neuroscience and our specific revenue guidance for oncology. That'll make it the 20th consecutive year of revenue growth, a really great track record.
And specifically in the period from 2018 till now, a 13.5% compound annual growth rate in revenues. And I'm happy to say 2025 is going to be the 21st year of revenue growth, even though we haven't given guidance yet. Okay. And let me now turn and spend a few minutes on our pipeline, highlighting some of our key programs. Just like I talked about our growth on the commercial side, we've dramatically expanded our R&D efforts over this period, more than tripling the number of programs. On this slide, we're just showing a few of our key programs, including latest developments or upcoming milestones. I particularly want to highlight on this slide zanidatamab with a phase three top-line PFS readout in GEA coming in the second quarter of this year, with ongoing trials in breast cancer and our pan-tumor trial.
I'd also like to highlight Zepzelca, where we plan to submit an sNDA in the first half of 2025 to move up into first-line small cell lung cancer. While not on this slide, I do want to take a moment to provide an update on our JZP-385 program. Consistent with what we saw in the essential tremor trial, we did not, in our Parkinson's disease tremor trial, achieve our primary or our key secondary endpoints. As a result, we will not continue development of JZP-385 in essential tremor or Parkinson's disease tremor, although we are thinking about other options for that program. Beyond what's listed on this slide, we do have earlier programs as well in solid tumor, in epilepsy, and in narcolepsy. Let's dive into zanidatamab a little bit more. Zanidatamab is a highly active, differentiated HER2-targeted bispecific and biparatopic monoclonal antibody.
Its novel and differentiated MOA give it what we believe is the best-in-class profile that addresses unmet need. We now have compelling clinical data in multiple indications, which makes us confident that the commercial opportunity for us across tumor types with zanidatamab exceeds $2 billion in annual revenue. We're rapidly advancing this program. Certainly proud to have received at the end of last year that approval in second-line BTC. And we're now looking toward GEA as our next opportunity. I mentioned second quarter top-line PFS data, which would lead us, if successful, to a quick sBLA submission as well as compendia listings. And then we are continuing to generate data in BTC, in GEA, in breast cancer, and across pan-tumor opportunities. Our goal is to make zanidatamab the HER2-targeted therapy of choice.
In the case of Zepzelca, the IMforte phase 3 trial demonstrated statistically significant and clinically very meaningful improvements in OS as well as PFS in first-line extensive stage small cell lung cancer. We're looking forward to getting that sNDA to the FDA to expand that indication. This is going to be a real improvement for patients. Certainly, we're proud of our second-line agent of choice status in small cell lung cancer, but moving up to front line is going to give us the opportunity to address more patients. More patients are treated in front line, as well as a longer duration of therapy. Okay. Let me turn next to some of our commercial products and walk you through some of our excitement there.
As a summary, we've got highly differentiated medicines for patients with serious diseases, with our top-line growth and our diversified business spanning sleep, epilepsy, and oncology, each of which is now annualizing at over $1 billion a year in revenue. Ziihera, as I said, has the potential to be the therapy of choice in multiple HER2-positive tumors. Zepzelca has that expansion opportunity in the front line. And Rylaze remains the standard of care in pediatric ALL and LBL patients with asparaginase hypersensitivity reactions. In neuroscience, we have in Epidiolex the number one branded epilepsy treatment, and in Xywav, the number one treatment for narcolepsy and the only approved therapy for idiopathic hypersomnia. This diverse product mix gives us great cash flow generation. We had approximately $1 billion in cash flow over the first three quarters of 2024.
Ziihera's unique mechanism of action drives a compelling clinical profile and patient outcomes. We're seeing compelling and durable responses, but we're also seeing a very favorable tolerability profile. This is not an ADC, right? It does not have a chemo warhead on it, and the combination data we're seeing supports the ability to combine with other agents in multiple HER2-positive indications, so we're underway with our BTC launch. This is really going to set us up for multiple indications with Ziihera. You see here the clinical data in second-line BTC: 51.6% ORR, 14.9-month median duration of response, and a very low discontinuation rate. We are proud to dose our first patient very soon after approval, so before the end of the year. We're also pleased to be added very quickly to the NCCN and ESMO BTC treatment guidelines.
Our two launch objectives: first, establish Ziihera as the standard of care for second-line HER2-positive BTC. I'll remind you, this is a fairly rare cancer, so the revenue contribution from Ziihera in BTC is going to be limited. But our other launch objective is to build momentum for its potential as a transformative next-generation agent in broader indications. So giving HCPs the opportunity to experience treatment with Ziihera, recognizing there's high overlap between those who would prescribe for BTC and those who would prescribe for GEA. We're using our existing team and expertise to execute on this launch. We've got deep oncology experience, including a lot of experience in the HER2 therapy space. Our infrastructure was well positioned, given that there is significant overlap in the existing calling universe already in place with our oncology salesforce.
We've got robust access and patient support services already online, including through our Jazz Cares suite of services. Zanidatamab, when we look beyond the launch in BTC, remember we're looking at much larger indications to follow with that GEA data coming in the second quarter, but also the EmpowHER breast cancer trial where we're looking at zanidatamab plus chemo in patients who've progressed after an HER2 or T-DXd treatment. And then in our pan-tumor trial, we're looking at monotherapy zanidatamab in a number of cohorts, including HER2 treatment naive patients as well as patients who fail T-DXd. Zepzelca, well established as the second-line small cell lung cancer treatment of choice, has now generated $1.1 billion in revenue since we launched in mid-2020. And again, we reported statistically significant and clinically meaningful progress on PFS as well as OS in our phase three trial in combination with Tecentriq.
This was in partnership with Roche. We're very much looking forward to presenting that data at an upcoming medical meeting. Rylaze continues to perform exceptionally well, and sustained asparaginase activity over the course of therapy is essential to treatment success in ALL and LBL. Again, here we've achieved $1.1 billion in revenue in this case since mid-2021. This is the only therapy available to patients in the U.S. who have a hypersensitivity reaction to the E. coli-derived asparaginase. We're seeing continued strong demand for Rylaze, particularly with growth opportunities in the adolescent and young adult patient segment, as well as switching to Rylaze at the first sign of hypersensitivity. I will remind everyone there were changes to the pediatric protocols in mid-year this year. That has resulted in a delay of some doses of Rylaze. Those patients will get the same number of asparaginase doses over time.
So while we are seeing an impact on third and fourth quarter revenue, that should normalize early in 2025. Turning now to Epidiolex. Epidiolex growth has been great over the last few quarters. There's really still high unmet need in pediatric onset epilepsies. Pediatric onset, although they continue into adulthood, we're seeing broad spectrum efficacy. And we are on track to achieve blockbuster status in 2025. In our most recent quarter, the third quarter of 2024, we reported 18% year-over-year growth for Epidiolex. We're continuing to educate on the combined efficacy we see when you use Epidiolex together with clobazam. And we're continuing to generate compelling data, including beyond seizure benefits from our EPIC study in TSC and our BECOME survey in long-term care facilities. And we continue to see growth opportunity, particularly in the adult setting, both in the U.S. and in Europe. Xywav has been performing exceptionally well.
This is our low-sodium oxybate with a real growth opportunity in IH. We are annualizing at over $1.5 billion in sales as of the third quarter. This is the number one treatment for narcolepsy and the only approved oxybate therapy that doesn't carry a warning and precaution related to high sodium intake. FDA has found our product to be clinically superior to high-sodium oxybates, including Xyrem and Lumryz, by means of greater safety. We're seeing positive impact on some of the programs we've rolled out over the past year and see continued opportunity, particularly in reaching more IH patients as the only therapy approved to treat IH with no near-term competition looming. Let me wrap up with just a couple of slides on where I think we're positioned to deliver long-term value. Really, it starts with capital allocation, premised off the strong financial position of the company.
Again, we generated $1 billion in operating cash flow over the first three quarters of 2024. We ended the third quarter with $2.6 billion in cash and investments and today we have an $885 million undrawn line of credit, so lots of firepower for us to invest in things that we think will create value for shareholders, starting with investing in commercial growth of those products that we have that have that growth potential in front of them. Also including opportunities to invest in a very productive and exciting R&D pipeline and last but not least, the opportunity to continue to invest in broadening our portfolio through corporate development activities, so in conclusion, I think we're really well positioned to deliver growth and meaningful shareholder value, starting with commercial execution across our portfolio. I've talked about all these products today: Ziihera, Epidiolex, Xywav, Zepzelca, Rylaze.
Also, our pipeline catalysts. This is going to be an exciting year for us, certainly with the zanidatamab GEA data in the second quarter, but also moving Zepzelca up to front line, as well as continued progress in our other zanidatamab trials. And then, as I mentioned, we will stay busy on the corporate development side. We're well positioned financially. We're well positioned operationally. We've got a track record of doing great deals like zepzelca, like zanidatamab. So I think we're entering 2025 with great momentum. I have to say that's due to our dedicated and talented employees around the globe. I want to thank them. And with that, I'll conclude, and we'll open it up for Q&A. I'm going to ask a couple of my colleagues to join me up here on stage. Thank you very much.
I can see Jess has tough questions in her hand already. Maybe just first for Bruce, you mentioned that you're retiring at the beginning of the presentation. Why is now the right time to pass the baton? Yeah. Well, let me say my timing on this was really driven by me, not by the company. It's not like I looked at the company and said, "This is the moment we need to switch CEOs." But I've been enrolled for 22 years now. It is a, for all of you CEOs out there, and I see a couple, it's a more than full-time job. I'm an empty nester now. I've got a little more flexibility in my life. And I really want the opportunity to spend some of my time doing things I have not had time to do for the past 22 years.
That said, Jess, I do think the company's in really good shape for a transition. I mentioned I think we have the right strategy, commercial portfolio, R&D productivity, and management team. I've given the board lots of advanced notice. I did not say I'm in a hurry. I just said, "Let's get started. Let's try to do this over the next year." It'll be a thoughtful process looking at internal and external candidates. I'm confident we'll find somebody great and continue to execute well. What are the kind of priorities the board's looking for in the next leader? Well, I'm not sure I want to speak on behalf of the whole board, but I'll frame the situation this way. We're looking for somebody who can lead Jazz from 2025 far into the future, as opposed to how we got to where we are today.
It is a different company, as I mentioned in my slides about transformation. So execution remains supremely important. Renée moved into a new position 14 months ago and has been leading, I think, an upgrade of our performance over time as we continue to focus on more field force effectiveness, as we continue to do other things to make us more successful. But increasingly, success for the company is really, I think, based on capital allocation decisions, as I highlighted at the end. When do we spend capital on external opportunities? How much capital do we devote to our commercial efforts, to our big pipeline programs after they're de-risked? And so I think that's an important piece. I think dealing with an increasingly complex global landscape for our industry is important and being a great leader. But CEO is only one position in the company.
I don't mean to minimize its importance. It is an important position. I don't do this job alone. I've got a great team, and I think the next CEO needs to complement and be able to lead that team or, as the team evolves over time, an effective team of senior leaders. Got it. Given that kind of we're entering a period of leadership transition that could be internal or could be external, does that kind of raise the bar for what a potential deal would have to deliver this year if you were to pursue it? Does it really have to be worth it? Because if it's somebody external who's walking in and you're sort of integrating a new asset, I don't know how that really works. I don't think it raises the bar. I think the bar has been high and should remain high.
We want to do deals we're really excited about as a good use of capital, as a good fit for our capabilities, as something that's going to contribute to that longer-term growth, sustainable value creation. So I don't think of it as raising the bar. The bar should be high. It should stay high. And we should execute. So while we're on this, can you maybe recap what the company's business development priorities are, whether it's therapeutic area or commercial versus development stage or size of deal? Yeah. Phil, why don't I hand that to you? Yeah. Thanks for the question. We are looking across each of our therapeutic areas that we're currently in. So sleep, epilepsy, oncology to build each of those verticals. We also do look selectively outside for other rare orphan-like diseases that we can also apply Jazz's capabilities.
Remind the group that before we acquired GW, we were not in that particular space. So that's an example of getting into a new therapeutic area through, in that case, a commercial asset. We do look across the spectrum from currently marketed products to those that are earlier in development and look at both acquisition as well as licensing. Again, zanidatamab, a great example of a very capital-efficient investment that is poised to make a significant return on that investment. So we'll look sort of agnostic of deal type over the licensing as well as acquisition and then across the variety of TAs. As Bruce, I think, has mentioned, we have quite a bit of firepower to be able to deploy. I think a likely scenario is that's over multiple transactions, but we also are open to larger transactions as well.
If we are looking at larger transactions and a greater amount of heaviness, for example, like we had with GW, we'd certainly look for a clear path to deleverage relatively quickly. So we'd be back in the position again of being able to deploy capital for corporate development to continue to expand our ability to impact patients and drive shareholder value. So maybe turning to the oxybate franchise. So you've done this frankly remarkable job of continuing to deliver net patient adds for Xywav in narcolepsy, even in the face of competition, not to mention the growth that we see in IH. But based on the stock price, I get the sense that investors are still reluctant to give you credit for that business being durable. What do you think is maybe misunderstood about whether it's the narcolepsy market or Jazz's oxybate business? Renée? Yeah.
I think there are a couple of things to think about with respect to durability. First, with respect to the branded part of our competitive set out there, we're seeing that physicians and patients are appreciating the benefits of Xywav for low-sodium long-term health as well as flexible dosing. We've seen resounding numbers in looking at our Q3 in-market numbers over 10,000 patients versus our branded competitor. We're four times that. We continue to see that low-sodium differentiating, sorry, low-sodium making a big difference in terms of differentiation. Now, when you look at authorized generics, we have multiple authorized generics on the market right now. As we look at what may happen in the longer term, should Hikma or other companies decide to launch a full generic, we would expect our authorized generic royalties to go away. We would expect to see additional impact to our Xyrem branded revenues.
But ultimately, the differentiation we've established with Xywav is what we think will drive the continued strength of that franchise. Keep in mind that Xywav is not AB rated versus another high-sodium oxybate. And we think that every single high-sodium oxybate patient is a potential Xywav patient. And then, of course, as you mentioned, when we look at idiopathic hypersomnia, we're the only drug approved for idiopathic hypersomnia. We see a lot of opportunity there when we look at 37,000 patients from claims data undiagnosed seeking treatment, and we have over 3,500 patients exiting the third quarter. So we do see a lot of opportunity for penetration there. Great. Maybe we can touch on the orexin class. You guys have an early-stage asset there. There's other companies further along in development. Is this class complementary to competitive with oxybate? How do you envision it fitting in?
I certainly see it as complementary to the oxybate franchise and to Xywav. The reason for that is narcolepsy, whether it be NT1 or NT2 or even IH, is really a disease of disrupted nighttime sleep. Oxybate, Xywav is really the only drug that can correct some of that underlying disrupted sleep that ultimately results in improved symptoms during the day. Any wake-promoting agent certainly can address sleepiness and, in some cases, cataplexy. Without correcting the underlying root cause, there'll be persistent symptoms. We really do see this as complementary. For the orexin space, certainly a promising target, very much a potent alerting agent. Still questions around what the best profile will be, Jess, and some concerns around, especially a longer half-life drug, actually contributing to that nighttime disruption of sleep because it's certainly alerting no matter when you give it.
And if there's active concentrations leading into bedtime, then that could contribute to the underlying cause. Maybe switching to Ziihera, can you spend a little more time on the market opportunity in your lead indication here in second-line BTC? What's the addressable market there, and what's the right way to think about duration of therapy? So as we look at BTC, there are about 12,000 patients in our major markets. That's the U.S., Europe, as well as in Japan. In the U.S., it's about 3,000 patients. So while this is a small patient population, the need is great. The prognosis is quite poor for these patients. And we saw the 14.9-month duration of response, which is really meaningful. We do expect, though, given the patient numbers for the revenue, to be modest for this first indication.
Now, of course, we have GEA reading out in the second quarter, as Bruce mentioned. And so when we look at the opportunity in GEA, it's much bigger. It's more like 63,000 patients across our geographies. And the benefit of being on the market in BTC first is physicians have an opportunity to get experience treating. When we go to submit our regulatory application, it's an sBLA, so that should be a faster path to market. And while, of course, we won't promote until we are approved, we do tend to see use, of course, once you're on treatment guidelines. So we would expect to move towards getting on treatment guidelines as quickly as possible. And then what about in first-line HER2-positive GEA? What makes you confident that that is a de-risked study? I would say because Rob told me, so maybe Rob should answer this question.
Can I take 30 minutes for this? The starting point is, in a field of many different HER2 agents, it takes a little bit of, let's say, research and understanding to see that zanidatamab is really highly differentiated and best in class. Its mechanism is quite different. It's bispecific. It binds to two separate receptors and, as a result, very efficiently internalizes and blocks oncogenic signaling through the HER2 receptor. It's also the most active from an immune perspective. It's the only antibody that fixes complement. So it has this added mechanism of enhancing anti-cancer immune effects. You see that preclinically. You see it head-to-head doing better preclinically than, say, the combination of Herceptin and Perjeta. All the data we've read out since we've been licensed this support that premise that this is really best in class.
We talked about BTC being relatively small commercial opportunity, but I don't want to miss the opportunity to say these results are astounding. For the broader population, over 40% response rate. For the highly expressing, over 50% response rate with 14.9 months of durability as a monotherapy is just unprecedented, even when you look at combinations of Herceptin and Perjeta as a comparator. And then as you look at data across all the other indications, either as monotherapy or in combination or in patients who failed multiple prior HER2 therapies in GEA and breast cancer, it really stands out as best in class. On the GEA opportunity, we have two separate front-line phase two trials run by different companies in different parts of the world, giving results that are clearly superior than what you'd expect with the standard of care.
Higher response rates, duration of response notable in that 18-20-month duration, depending on whether you're giving just zanidatamab and chemo or adding tislelizumab, the PD-1 inhibitor to that. And then PFS estimates 15.2 and 16.7 months, where the three prior pivotal trials had a range of 6.7-8.2. That gives us a fair amount of confidence, specifically in the GEA indication. And then the breast cancer data, which continue to roll out, again, showing activity after multiple lines of therapy, including in HER2, gives us a lot of confidence that we can then move into the much larger breast cancer population with a very high probability study that's already underway. I know we're getting a PFS update here in 2Q, right? How long after that might we get the OS results? We positioned this trial to have three OS looks.
As you remember, we had an opportunity to increase the sample size to 918 without impacting our timing of the PFS readout. That gives us the opportunity to have an, I would call it, an early look, Jess, at overall survival at the time we look at PFS. But then we get a second look at overall survival around the time that the original study would have looked at final survival and then still have a third chance where we feel we're much more robustly powered. So I'm not setting expectations high for that first look. It's really designed to allow us to have some OS data to accompany the global regulatory filings to show a positive trend. But then we have more robust looks at the second and the final. And how far after the PFS results in that first look?
How long do we have to wait for the second and the third? Yeah. We haven't started to project them yet. It's events-driven. And as we get out to that point, I think we'll have a better estimate of when we think we'll see the requisite number of events, both for the second interim and the final. So maybe look to update that around the time that we provide the PFS results. Okay. And then if Zepzelca goes moving up to the front line, I would imagine as that occurs, that'll kind of cannibalize the second-line opportunity to some extent. What's the right way to think about kind of the net increase in opportunity from that product moving upstream? Yeah. So generally speaking, more patients and longer duration of therapy because what you're effectively doing in this switched maintenance setting is to preempt the progression.
You're treating those patients earlier. What's important to remember is many patients don't make it to second line, so you're capturing more patients. It's also critical that we believe these results are practice-changing. As Bruce said, we're excited to get the specific data out there, and we'll do that as soon as possible. It'll become the standard of care for extensive stage front line. Very minimal competition there. That's different from the second line where we're competing very effectively for patients, but we should capture many more patients in that front line while still retaining the ability to use Zepzelca in second line for any patients who might not have gotten it in front line. Who would they be? For more limited stage patients for whom the standard of care won't change right away, those patients then can get Zepzelca.
So we're really capturing a much higher proportion of patients. And again, they're benefiting for a longer period of time, so they'll get more drug over time. So we're in 2025, and you guys previously had given a long-term outlook for 2025. What's the likelihood that Jazz does something like that again and provides long-term targets like an out to, I don't know, 50 or 2030? Want to talk about our 2050 targets still? Only 2050? Historically, we have not provided multi-year guidance as a company. We've typically given guidance for the year we're in when we report our fourth-quarter results from the prior year. I think that's going to be our standard approach going forward. There was a unique confluence of events that led us to want to help investors see through that initial competition period for oxybate because we're getting a lot of questions about that.
Right now, I think our growth is a little more clear in terms of where it's coming from and, obviously, with the opportunity to continue to do corp dev. So never say never. I'm not saying that confluence of events will never happen again, but we don't have a current plan in place to regularly update three, five, or longer periods for guidance.