America. We are front and center, wanting to work with the administration. There are areas that I would say, organizationally and from an industry perspective, that I think we could have a substantial impact. Some of it, we're encouraged by—the administration recognizes it. Some of the middlemen, focusing on the PBM reform, 340B reform, areas where we can bring the cost and drive it down to the patient so they actually see it at the pharmacy counter. Those are areas I think we want to continue to work with the administration on, on fixing. That is where I think we stand today. Those discussions are going weekly, as you probably know.
Yes, certainly. All right. Maybe we can just dive right in then. Again, sort of staying big picture, Dom, talk us through the strategy in the innovative medicines business. Unpack for us some of the drivers behind this growth trajectory framing of 5%-7% growth. What are some of the major catalysts that we should be watching?
Yes, yes. I'd be happy to. I think, as you probably remember, in 2023, we had our enterprise business review at the end of the year. We laid out a strategy in innovative medicine really to focus on three pillars: immunology, oncology, and neuroscience, with some other select disease area strongholds. We also said we were going to hit $57 billion by 2025. I will say, as you look back, we did that in 2024. We're on track to continue that momentum into 2025, as you saw in the first quarter. I think if we stick with the strategy, as we think about in oncology, substantial growth in oncology is still on the backbone of many of our assets, whether it be Darzalex, Erleada, some of the new entrants that we're launching, Rybrevant FastPro, and Rybrevant Lazcluze.
There's one area that I would say of significant growth opportunity for us. We declared that a $5 billion-plus asset, our combination asset. And we're well on track to achieve that. I think, based on if you just talk about that product or the combination of those products, really substantial impact in EGFR, non-small cell lung cancer, really displacing the standard of care. As you think about the overall survival advantage that we highlighted at ELCC, really showing at least a one-year advantage of survival over Osimertinib. That is an area of truly transformation. There has not been an innovation over 10 years in this area that has demonstrated that. We developed that product and that combination fairly quickly. And we learned along the way. And we learned that we also need to look at some of the AE management.
We did additional trials there to mitigate some of the AEs associated with the combination and have released that data as well. If you think about the survival advantage, the AE mitigation, as well as some of the other areas in which we can expand into, we definitely see substantial opportunity in growth. Immunology as well, and neuroscience, just with the acquisition of Intracellular that we did not know at the EBR, just gives more confidence to be able to deliver that 5%-7% growth. In Q1, you looked at it, we had 4.2% operational growth. That is despite LOE with Stelara, basically about 810 basis points of headwinds from an LOE perspective. If we take that aside and move that aside, you are looking at an underlying operational growth of roughly 12%. Significant momentum, 11 products growing double digits.
We're very confident in delivering that 5%-7% growth.
Perfect, perfect framing. Let's start double-clicking on some of the things you said there. You said a lot. I want to start with immunology, just maybe just to just Stelara. I guess it's been a few months now since the biosimilar launches. How is that erosion curve playing out, Dom? I'd be interested in hearing about what you're seeing in terms of switches to Tremfya, if any at all, as compound compressors.
Absolutely, absolutely. Look, I would say we were quite pleased and proud of the progress that we did and the impact Stelara has had on many patients worldwide. We reached peak year sales of roughly $11 billion. As you highlighted, we lose an exclusivity of Stelara. Biosimilar entrants have taken place within the first quarter of this year, many of them in February. You did not really see a significant impact. You will probably see a little bit of acceleration. I would say we still believe year two of Humira is a good proxy as we think about the erosion curves for Stelara, with obviously a little bit of the Part D on top of that from an impact perspective. If we think about Stelara, though, and Tremfya now is what we really believe Tremfya is going to overcome that LOE and really displace Stelara.
Not only have we proven head-to-head superiority in psoriasis that was communicated years ago, but most recently, we demonstrated within the CD trials for our galaxy that Stelara was inferior, or Tremfya was superior to Stelara in many endoscopic remission endpoints. That is one area that we do believe it is going to displace. We are quite excited about the launch of Tremfya in IBD most recently. We launched first in ulcerative colitis. With that launch, we do believe we have one of the best in disease assets based on the efficacy, one of the highest rates of endoscopic remission, as well as the sustained remission that you see there. What we saw is significant uptake. It is quite impressive to see you talk about Stelara, but IL-23 is the fastest growing class in ulcerative colitis.
Now, within the first six months, we've seen that Tremfya has actually taken about 50% of that new share from an induction perspective. We are off to the, I would say, the races with UC indication. Now, just recently, we got the approval in the U.S. for CD.
Grounds.
That's the head-to-head data that we showed against Stelara. With CD also, the one thing that was different that is really a game changer, we're hearing it from the providers, is the subcutaneous formulation for induction. It's the only IL-23 that has a subcutaneous formulation. Ease in administration and use and simple procedure at home, it's really a game changer. We're hearing that from a lot of the early reception from many of the providers. Stelara, I mentioned, had $11 billion, sorry, peak year sales. 75% of it was IBD. If you just think about Tremfya, we delivered about $4 billion in net trade sales off of the psoriatic indications. Now, with IBD, there's no reason why you don't see it to exceed what we saw with Stelara.
That launch, like you said, certainly does seem to be powering ahead. I mean, you beat first quarter consensus by about 6%. Like you said, Crohn's just got approval at the end of the first quarter. I'd just be curious and just high-level framing on what you're seeing on the ground, particularly as it relates to receptivity between UC and Crohn's disease.
Absolutely. I think we do market research, obviously, and we have the voice of the customer. I think some of the things that we think about from leading indicators and tend to prescribe, unaided awareness, how we're getting in the marketplace. We are really hitting all the parameters and all the metrics, exceeding what we see from a competition standpoint, the other IL-23s in the marketplace on UC. We are already seeing that on the CD perspective. As I highlighted, some of the early feedback, whether it be the subcutaneous formulation and administration for CD, we're anxiously awaiting the approval of that for UC, which we do believe will have another inflection point and see rapid uptake. One of the other things that we did was invest heavily into the fulfillment. How can patients be helped along the process to get the product post-prescription?
We invested heavily there. I will tell you, the fulfillment journey and some of our patient services, many of our customers say it's best in the industry now. That's something we're quite proud of. Now that we have the ability to deliver the product at home, if a patient has commercial insurance, is an adult, they can basically receive this treatment within 24 hours. These are some of the things that I would say are leading indicators, but also receptivity from the customer that they see truly differentiating.
That's perfect. Very helpful. Let's just maybe stay within that and talk a little bit about the oral IL-23, JNJ-2113.
It's a test, isn't it?
It's always a test. I'm going to have to just keep practicing and seeing it over and over again.
Coach Icotrokinra.
Thank you. How about Icot?
I'm going to be filing soon for plaque psoriasis. I believe this is the first time that an oral pill is going to have the efficacy and tolerability of a biologic. You have framed a tremendous amount of enthusiasm for this opportunity, which we share to some extent. Maybe just high-level start with framing the opportunity for us. Also talk about how you see this fitting in with the injectables like Tremfya. Why wouldn't it potentially cannibalize some of the Tremya opportunity along its launch and ramp?
Yeah. We are incredibly excited about Icotrokinra , our first targeted oral peptide targeting the IL-23 pathway.
One, we obviously released the data in psoriasis against placebo, truly looking at the perfect combination that you see, our perfect product if you think about just complete skin clearance, safety, and the convenience of once-a-day oral administration. As you think about it, we have, what, 125 million patients suffering from autoimmune diseases. Just in IBD and psoriatic diseases, roughly 5 million patients should be on an advanced therapy or a biologic that are not on. There is significant opportunity from just a market expansion. You talk about positioning, there is this group of patients that may not want to go on to a biologic, but need to receive treatment, whether it be in psoriasis or in inflammatory bowel disease. If you think about that market opportunity, that's there.
Within the space where those want a treatment, 75% of patients believe they would like to switch to an oral therapy that are already on a biologic. You have some that may be on a biologic, they may want to go on to an oral therapy. We do not believe it just to be a convenience play, though. We do believe the safety profile, and we soon will be releasing head-to-head data against DUCRA later this year. We do believe this will be the first-line systemic treatment for patients with autoimmune diseases.
Would you, I know you haven't commented it, but just sort of high-level framing in the context of where we started, MFN, drug pricing, just any early thoughts on how you would think about sort of the pricing strategy for this compound?
Yeah, we don't talk about future pricing strategies for any of our investigational drugs. I would just tell you, we know the marketplace very well. We know the innovation that it's bringing. We're going to continue down our pricing principles of how we deliver that to the market.
Let's segue to multiple myeloma. A little bit more complicated in some than immunology. I think there's some debates on the margin on a few different things that I want to talk to you about. Number one, just on Darzalex, I guess that has been the subject of some debate around IRA price negotiation inclusion. Just maybe talk about J&J's position regarding when it could be potentially up for negotiation and sort of what gives you the confidence that if it's not up for negotiation, what gives you that confidence?
Yes, yeah. I think first and foremost, Darzalex, what a remarkable product.
Absolutely.
Such a significant innovation has taken place within multiple myeloma. We're quite proud of the progress we've made. We're not satisfied, though, until we reach cure across all patients. From a J&J perspective, we've delivered now half of the 11 products that are approved in multiple myeloma. We know the space very well. Getting to your point with regards to IRA or the draft guidance for interpretation, in under comment for you right now, looking at fixed dose combinations or different subcutaneous formulations, we do believe, based on the current draft guidance and our interpretation of that, our stance remains the same. We do not foresee to have an impact from negotiations any sooner than 2034 because Darzalex is an innovative fixed dose combination that delivers clinically meaningful benefits to patients versus the I.V.
A significant reduction in IRRs and AEs associated with the subcutaneous versus the I.V. formulation. Based even on the draft guidance, we feel very confident that we won't be up for negotiation prior to 2034.
They're truly clinically different.
Yes.
Is what you're saying in terms of different moieties?
Yes.
When does that patent expire? When is it?
We were looking for, based on the current guidance of IRA, we would not look for negotiations until 2034.
2034.
With the patent other than that.
Sorry, negotiating in 2034. Okay. Let's talk about anything else on Darzalex that you'd want to.
Look, I would tell you, Darzalex has significant growth year over year, as you know. Quarter one, roughly 24%, 23%, 24% growth. We still see significant growth in the future. I think if you think about it, we're awaiting in the U.S. the additional quad indication for the transplant ineligible population. We believe Darzalex is the foundational treatment in multiple myeloma. There is significant opportunity in many markets to continue to grow share in the front line, duration of response or duration of therapy also growing as you go into earlier lines, but also being the foundational backbone of all investigational drugs, even our own that are coming into the marketplace, are in combination with Darzalex as we get out of a standard of care. We see significant opportunities ahead of us still with Darzalex. Obviously our portfolio of products with multiple myeloma.
Perfect segue into Carvykti then. Continues to show some pretty remarkable data on the efficacy side. I mean, coming out of ASCO, these CARTITUDE-1 data that you saw, the five-year data that was suggestive of a cure, potential cure in a subset of patients, just really remarkable efficacy. Within that, there's also this subtext of this lingering debate with respect to Parkinsonism and neurotox and whether this could actually impact J&J's position in an increasingly crowded landscape where everyone is battling to go into earlier lines of treatment. Just speak to the pushes and pulls on the growth trajectory for Carvykti in this backdrop.
Absolutely. You touched on it already upfront. I mean, we are quite impressed, as well as the community out there and hopefully patients, the opportunity or hope for cure. In the CARTITUDE-1 data that was released at ASCO and actually the most downloaded publication in JCO showing that really a third of the patients or 33% of the patients are disease-free after five years. Those are patients that have blown through five lines of therapy.
Wonderful.
Truly transformative. You take the CARTITUDE-1 data and we went in CARTITUDE -4 and released that data and showed a substantial survival advantage over standard of care in lines one through four, so prior line therapy. If you take that, that's really where you got to start with. Overall survival is key and cure even keyer. That's a relative benefit-risk ratio that you need to look at. Right there, you're saying overall survival advantage. We do believe Carvykti is going to be a mainstay, especially as you go in earlier lines of therapy. In fact, half of our utilization is in earlier lines now as we think about the utilization. There's already adoption and receptivity. You touched on potential AEs, neurotoxicity. Yeah, we did see some of that in the later lines.
As we're thinking about and seeing in the earlier line setting, it's less than 1% as you go into earlier lines. That relative risk-benefit ratio is already leaning towards benefit. We learned a lot through the development, as with other products in our portfolio, as with any other company in oncology. You start with a single-arm trial, and you go to phase three trials. You start to characterize the profile of the product and understand from a safety standpoint how you can mitigate that. Many of the sites have already looked at that, bridging therapies. We understand a little bit better and educate around the proper bridging therapies, as well as looking at ALC counts. There are mitigation factors to even delay the neurotox further if it is. We feel very confident in our ability to deliver Carvykti and being a $5 billion-plus asset as well.
In the totality of our multiple myeloma profile, we feel very confident, as we said at EBR, of $25 billion by 2030.
Very clear. Thank you for that. Let's stay within oncology. Let's talk about bladder cancer and the TAR-200 program. Your team has made some comments about how you want to make bladder cancer the next multiple myeloma, so sort of a good segue into maybe unpacking this opportunity. That is a big statement in terms of what we just discussed on Darzalex and even Carvykti. When I look at the landscape thus far, bladder cancer is still sort of commercially unproven in some respects. Walk us through your thinking on how you're getting to these sort of numbers that are getting framed.
Absolutely. I think first and foremost, bladder cancer still is a high unmet medical need. I mean, roughly a million patients globally, whether it be early diagnosis to recurrent disease. Significant unmet need still exists in the marketplace. We have the ability to deliver two products. TAR-200 is the first product that I'll get to. TAR-210 is another one. TAR-200 has gemcitabine in the intravesical drug delivery system. And erdafitinib is the product for TAR-210. I'll talk about the difference of those two products. If you think, TAR-200 right now is under review with the FDA and the Real-Time Oncology Review, which we did receive priority review for. We do anticipate that approval later this fall. That is in high-risk, non-muscle-invasive, BCG unresponsive bladder cancer. A pocket of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.
In the data that we shared at AUA, it showed over an 82% CR rate, where half those patients are disease-free after a year. Truly differentiated, true innovation. This is in a device or a drug delivery system that is a simple procedure in a practice, in a urology practice. It was made by a urologist for a urologist. Locally administered, AEs, minimal AEs when it is locally administered. Every three weeks, go to an administration to have it removed and then insert it back in. Substantial opportunity ahead of us. Easy, the supply chain as well as you think about storage, easily supplied within the urology office. We do see that to be transformative. As we go into further indications or expansion in the marketplace, going head-to-head against BCG, as well as looking at muscle-invasive bladder cancer.
Across all of bladder cancer, we do believe it to be a $5 billion-plus opportunity. TAR-210 is now targeted towards FGFR. FGFR has a higher expression in earlier-stage bladder cancer, 40%-60% expression. You now have a targeted approach in a similar device or delivery system with similar AEs profile. You have two combinations, two products that you can look at: the targeted approach and then another dependent on the patient population. Significant opportunity as you think about a portfolio play.
How are you thinking about the competition from CG Oncology? Just maybe just talk to us about the competitive landscape, the emerging competitive landscape.
Yeah, yeah. We do believe that we have what we believe to be the best-in-disease product. Let's just talk TAR-210. With TAR-210, not only in the indication that we're initially seeking, but also as we think about in the future indications. One of the things that we are going head-to-head against and nobody else has is BCG. BCG is an old therapy, toxic therapy as well, hard to administer. If you talk to patients, they believe it's like a tiger clawing at your bladder. We're going head-to-head to displace BCG. Many of the others are combining with BCG. If you just think from a patient perspective, here you now are able to remove a therapy that they do not want to have administered to them. The complexity of administration is even more so.
To go into a urology practice and have it inserted in your bladder, TAR-200, and deliver the CR rates with the durability of CR rates, it's truly going to be differentiating. We do believe that the future will be looking at TAR-200.
Dom, you mentioned timelines. I still get the sense that there's some invested debate about whether this actually will get approved this year. You said you seem pretty confident by default we'll see approval. I know you have priority review, like you mentioned. I believe you also have a brand name now that's been.
Ilexa.
Yes, that's been thrown out, which is obviously very encouraging. Just maybe zone in on what's giving you confidence that you'll get timeline approval by the fall?
Yeah, I think you touched on it. I think we obviously are in frequent discussions with the FDA through our Real-Time Oncology Review. We have the appropriate data that they're looking for, and they have provided us priority review. We anticipate fall approval.
Okay. How should we be just high-level thinking about the early launch out of the gates?
Yeah, I think we know the space very well. We've been in urology for prostate cancer. We know the buy-and-bill practice as well in the U.S. We do believe we're going to be able to quickly penetrate the marketplace. Obviously, with many other buy-and-bill products, J-Code comes a little bit later. You will see an inflection with the J-Code as well.
Okay. All right. Let's talk about Rybrevant Lazcluze. You talked about this in your opening remarks already. I do want to drill in a little bit further and magnify and double-click on some of the comments that you made. Consensus estimates for 2027-2028 are about $2 billion. I think you guys have said it could be twice that in that timeframe, so $4 billion-ish by 2028. In the first quarter, you did $140 million. The ramp that that sort of opportunity is assuming is pretty steep. Help us understand how you're getting to those numbers.
Yeah, I think if you just focus on EGFRs, non-small cell lung cancer. First and foremost, we're approved front line, second line, exon 20, so three indications. We currently in the U.S., ex-U.S., we have the sub-q formulation available. In the U.S., we're anticipating that later this fall as well. Currently in the U.S., as we think about the IV formulation, not only do we have those three indications, we also have, and I highlighted it earlier, an overall survival advantage versus osimertinib. That is critical. I mean, survival trumps everything. When we were doing market research with many of our physicians, they said what would be substantially different and differentiated would be a six-month advantage. What we have highlighted and already communicated, at least a 12-month projected advantage over OC. Right there, you have the opportunities now, truly high efficacy.
Patients, on average, live three years in this setting. You can give them another year. That's truly substantial. We also developed this product pretty quickly. We had to understand the safety profile of it as well, the administration, the burdensome of the administration. If you think through that, we also did two other trials, what we call Cocoon and SKIPPirr.
Sure.
Cocoon data was released that we were able, through a simple prophylactic regimen, to reduce dermatologic AEs by 50%. SKIPPirr as well reduced IRRs substantially. We also did the Paloma trial, which showed sub-q versus I.V. Significant reduction in IRRs, which we were anticipating. What we were not anticipating was this overall survival advantage and durability of response that we saw in the trial. If you just think about EGFR, non-small cell lung cancer, you have a front line overall survival advantage with a subcutaneous formulation that demonstrates that response and that ability to have impact on patients. If they are already on a treatment, they are able to get Rybrevant in combination with chemotherapy. You have immediate play on all lines of therapy. We are also doing a trial. We did not just rest there. We are doing a trial called COPERNICUS.
COPERNICUS?
Yes. This is a trial in the front line setting. Our MARIPOSA 1 data, the front line data, was with IV.
Sure.
Now you bring it in the subcutaneous formulation with all the benefits that we just demonstrated with Paloma, with Q4-week dosing. Ensuring that the patient as well as the provider have a seamless experience. We do believe that's going to be the regimen of choice as we've learned a lot about the compound. The other thing that I'd like to highlight, we've shared data already, and we're going to share a little data later this year. For Rybrevant, we also have colorectal cancer, significant unmet need, high number of patients. Innovation has not happened in colorectal for some time now. Head and neck is another area that we're going to release some data. Not only are we looking at EGFR, non-small cell lung cancer, we also have colorectal and head and neck, two huge tumor types with significant unmet medical need.
Very clear. Thank you. Maybe just sticking with lung, I do want to ask you just on your views on the PD1 measure bispecifics, just given all of the activity and excitement about this modality as a potential disruptor of in large oncology indications. What is J&J's appetite to participate in this opportunity?
Yeah, we obviously consult with our R&D colleagues who are following the space quite closely as well. Some of this is drug development. I touched on the magnitude of benefit that Rybrevant has provided to patients with overall survival advantage. What you saw in some of these trials that you just highlighted was you saw a PFS advantage, but also not a survival advantage. We need to really understand the biology of the disease and why that's the case. As you know, you're going to really need survival advantage to really make an impact. We continue to monitor it. We do believe we might have some other immunotherapies in our pipeline that we're more excited about and want to invest in. And many of our R&D colleagues.
That's good.
Some of them were released, I would say, maybe not in lung cancer. In prostate cancer, we [guess] had our go . We had our KLK2, CD3 redirector in prostate cancer or metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, really showing early signs of efficacy, but also a safety profile really for the community urologist to be in oncologists to be able to administer. We do believe that's an exciting one. We have some other ones that will be disclosed, I'm sure, at other times.
We'll keep an eye on it. Let's talk about Nipocalimab. Just maybe just color on how is that launch going?
Yeah, it's early. It's early. We're definitely excited finally to bring Imaavy to the marketplace, Nipocalimab. It's the first and only FcRn blocker for a broad population of both pediatric as well as adult and ACR positive, anti-MuSK positive patients. It's early in myasthenia gravis, but we do believe the profile of the product, the safety profile, as well as the dosing and efficacy is truly differentiated. We're already hearing early signals, I would say anecdotal, from many of our customers that are excited about it. Some of them are switching from previous FcRn blockers, and some are just naive to it. That's our first entrance into autoantibody-driven diseases. Obviously we look at rare autoimmune diseases as well, autoantibody diseases, maternal fetal, which we do believe is truly differentiated, as well as rheumatic diseases such as Sjögren's and lupus.
Many of these diseases, if you think about the safety profile of the compound where we're studying it, if you just think maternal fetal, so female child-bearing potential, really demonstrating truly a safe product in these patient populations, there's a high prevalence of females in Sjögren's , lupus, and some of these other autoantibody-driven diseases. Truly having a differentiated safety profile and a sustained efficacy. That is one of the things through our dosing and knowing the biology is what we're showing it's going to be differentiated.
What do you think is going to lead to the inflection in that?
Yeah, I think obviously how we're going to launch in myasthenia gravis, but then these secondary indications that I would say are going to that are untapped, that it's going to be a major inflection point.
Okay. Let's maybe move to neuroscience. Spravato, that's also early-ish, but it's been a very exciting launch and certainly doing better than expectations. Give us sort of updating framing of that opportunity.
Yeah, I would say taking a step back in neuroscience, it's one of our three core pillars for development from end to end as we think about our resources and investment. We're focused on neuropsychiatry and neurodegeneration. In neuropsychiatry, we have Spravato on the marketplace today, truly innovative for treatment-resistant depression. The only one that had got priority review for both the adjunctive as well as the monotherapy that we just received approval this year for, truly showing a differentiated profile. I mean, you have complete significant reduction of depression symptoms within 24 hours, as well as the safety of AEs resolving within 24 hours. Something that's truly differentiated to any of the antipsychotics in the marketplace. We have seen rapid advancements in acceleration of treatment centers, so where they can administer the product, it has to be administered under the observations of a healthcare provider.
We have seen, as you have seen highlighted, it is already a blockbuster. We foresee this to be a $1 billion-$5 billion asset, really penetrating into earlier lines right now. Many of the usage of Spravato is in like fifth and sixth line. We think if you can bring it up into earlier line, maybe third, fourth, you are going to see a significant inflection point and continued growth and momentum. That is where our strategy is to do just that. I also have to highlight a recent acquisition for Intracellular.
I was going to go there, but please go ahead.
Please go and think about neuroscience. We do think if you think about multiple myeloma as a portfolio play, we now have, we're just excited to welcome Intracellular to the organization. It is truly what we do believe is the best in disease product for depression. Caplyta already approved for bipolar I and II, the only one approved for bipolar I and II depression, as well as schizophrenia. We have a pending SNDA with the FDA for AMDD. If you think about the data for AMDD, it is truly a best in the disease asset. The consistency between two trials and the reduction of the Maddrey scores, two times what you see on the marketplace today.
With a profile that can be delivered, no necessarily change in weight gain, EPS, and some of the safety signals and baggage, I would say, that you see with some of the other antipsychotics. Absolutely believe this to be a $5 billion-plus asset. If you think about line of therapy, you have Caplyta, earlier lines of major depressive disorder, and then for treatment-resistant depression, you have Spravato. In the pipeline, we have Celtrex and then the Ticaprim.
How's the integration of the ITCI acquisition going?
It's going really well, yeah. Yeah, I would tell you, the more and more we look behind the curtain, the more excited we are. I have to highlight also the pipeline 1284 that we acquired from them, also a highly differentiated asset in GAD and Alzheimer's disease. We have a portfolio of products that we're able to play with. At the end of the day, it's truly going to be important because significant unmet need in depression and neuropsychiatry.
We have a couple of minutes left, and there's two more things I want to talk about. Number one, is there anything else in terms of pipeline opportunities, Dom, that we have not touched on?
Oh, wow. I mean, you could talk. I talked about neurodegeneration. We have their TAO programs for Alzheimer's disease. In oncology, I touched a little bit on prostate cancer. I will tell you, we have a pipeline of other products. In myeloma, we just released data, our trispecific antibody.
Sure.
I would say as we're leaders in multiple myeloma, I do believe we're also leaders in bispecific antibodies. We've learned a lot about the chemistry and the biology. The engineering of our R&D organization and early discovery, I mean, really we believe might have made a best-in-class asset with this trispecific. Early data is out there, but truly can be transformative. We are leaders. We're going to shoot for that cure. We're just excited and reaffirm our commitment to be able to deliver well above their five to seven that we've said.
Okay. I guess maybe just to wrap then in the last couple of minutes, where do you, from where you sit, Dom, see opportunity to build out the portfolio within innovative medicines? I guess what I'm asking is, where would you, where do you think you're still subscale and there could be an opportunity to lean in?
Yeah, I would say they're still within the three therapeutic areas. We didn't touch on it. We've done some BD deals as we think about atopic dermatitis, another area in autoimmune diseases, maybe some other cancers within oncology. As we highlighted the EBR, we believe we're going to achieve $50 billion in oncology alone, non-risk adjusted. We could do well beyond that by our expertise as well as our commercialization.
Okay. All right. Any questions from the audience? Nick?
Just around your portfolio, what's your current thinking on strategy and development?
Yeah, we continue to, as you've seen, continue to see growth across both assets, Opsumit, Uptravi, as well as the recently launched Opsynvi. We are anxiously awaiting one of the other studies that we have ongoing. It's our MASI 75 program that's comparing MASI 75 to MASI 10 in PAH. We anticipate a readout of that eventually soon. If that hits, that's going to be another growth opportunity for us from a PAH perspective. Outside of that, we'll continue to explore any other BD opportunities, but we want to maintain laser focus on the three core areas that we've highlighted.
All right. We are just about at time. Dom, thank you very much for that discussion. It was very helpful. It was great to have you here. I think that is a good place to wrap.
Glad to be here, Asad. Thank you.
Thank you.