Good morning, everybody. I'm Chris Schott at J.P. Morgan, and it's my pleasure to be hosting this fireside chat with Albert Bourla, Chairman and CEO of Pfizer. Albert, happy New Year. Thanks for joining us.
Happy New Year and Happy New Year to everyone.
I know you were going to make some opening comments, and then we'll jump into the questions from there.
Yes, if I may, so a year ago, in the same state, you and me, we're sitting here, and I expressed my dissatisfaction and my disappointment for Pfizer's performance in 2023, and then also I articulated a plan that we have built with five priorities that I projected on the screen that we are going to execute so that we can turn around the situation. A year later, in the same state, I'm very pleased that all the goals that we had set in all five priorities were achieved and exceeded in most of the cases. I remind you, the five priorities, that was about oncology, and particularly Seagen, that was a major for us acquisition. It was about turning around our commercial engine. It was maximizing the new products. It was about reducing the cost, and we announced that we're going to take $4 billion out of our cost.
It was about pushing our pipeline. And of course, it was about capital allocation that will be shared with Dr. Flint. We achieved all of that. And at the same time, I think we did significant transformative changes in Pfizer. We, of course, integrated Seagen, but doubled the size of R&D capability in oncology, making us the number three oncology company in terms of sales in the U.S., behind the ones with the PD-1 s. And we are very satisfied with the way that this evolved. In commercial, we changed our commercial model. We changed leadership. And we were able to significantly exceed expectations and market share gains. On the cost base, we were able to take all $4 billion. And at the same time, we announced an additional $1.5 billion of margin improvements.
In the R&D, we changed the leadership of R&D after 15 years of successful Mikael Dolsten's service. And also, we restructured our R&D organization, and I can talk about it a little bit later. We returned significant amounts to shareholders. We returned, in the first nine months, $7+ billion of dividend, $4.5 billion we paid down our debt. And of course, we invested in R&D. And then we changed also two members of the board. We refreshed our board with two members that they are very shareholder value creation. So, all in all, I have to say that, as I was dissatisfied with 2023 performance, I'm quite satisfied with the performance of 2024. But moving ahead, I want to honor the tradition and introduce what are the priorities of Pfizer for the new year, for year 2025.
They are pretty much the same, but you will see some important nuances. If 2024 was a year where commercial execution was the forefront and the most important thing for the company, clearly for us in 2025, R&D and the advance of our pipeline is taking number one priority. So it is number one. We need to improve our R&D productivity and efficiency. We will continue expanding margins. It is a significant part of our thesis. We will do that by using simplification in our business processes and a lot of technology. We have implemented already in 2024 a lot of AI applications that significantly reduce the SG&A cost base and also improve the manufacturing yields. The third one, of course, it is to achieve commercial excellence in our key categories. We all know where is our strength: oncology, vaccines, cardiovascular, migraine, and of course, immunoinflammation.
And then we will continue optimizing the capital allocation. Things will not change. We will continue our dividend, growing dividend. We will pay down even more of the debt. We want to improve to 3.25. And we will, of course, invest in our business. So, all in all, I think 2024 was a year of execution. 2025 will remain a year of execution and creation through that of shareholder value, with an emphasis of R&D, margins expansion, continue the commercial successes, and continue capital allocation strategy that will be shareholder friendly. And with that, I'm at your disposal.
Yeah, a lot to dig into. So maybe I'll start with some bigger picture, kind of new administration questions. I know that's top of mind for a lot of people as we head into this year. So maybe just would love to hear your thoughts. New administration coming on board, what are you most focused on in terms of potential changes in the healthcare environment and what that could mean for Pfizer?
Yes. I think the new administration will bring radical rules. There is no doubt about it. So when you have radical change, there are always coming with risks and opportunities. There are several people that think for our industry, the risks outweigh the opportunities. There are other people, among them myself, which they think that the opportunities outweigh the risks. We will see. But the important thing is not to speculate if things will go well or right. The important thing is, what are you doing to influence the environment? What are you doing to make sure that the opportunities are the ones that will come up? And what we do as an industry and as Pfizer, it is engaged with the new administration. We have very productive engagements. And we try to explain the positions.
I think they are well understood so that we can implement policies that are very clear: pro-patient, patients out of pocket is extremely expensive in the U.S., w e need to change on that, p ro-innovation policies. China is growing faster and faster, and we should not let them take the lead. So we need to invest in innovation, in bioinnovation. And those are the two fundamental things: innovation and patient access of our medicines.
Turn to your focus. On the topic of vaccines, I know it's been particularly controversial. How do you think about any early reads from the administration and what could change for vaccines, or if anything will change on the vaccine front?
Look, I don't know. I've spoken a lot about it. It was written with the President, but also the President-elect, but also with Mr. Kennedy. Clearly, the things that he has said for the vaccines in the past are in complete contradiction with what we believe and what the medical community believes and what the scientific community believes and what regulators all over the world believe, and vaccines are the most effective, cost-effective healthcare intervention that exists since clean water. S o again, my philosophy is that we should try to engage not only on the things that we disagree, but try to find the opportunities on things that we can agree.
On the vaccines, if he does some of the things that he has spoken in the past, I think he will find in front of him, not us, but the entire medical community, the entire scientific community, the entire healthcare community in terms of insurance, let's say companies, community, because they know that this is very cost-effective. A nd also the employers who are really believing that by using vaccinations, they are reducing their healthcare costs rather than increasing it. A nd even worse, if he does some of the things, because already we have some, we are losing some vaccinations in pox and other types of polio in terms of how many people are vaccinating. If we go below a specific threshold, we will start having epidemics. And that will be detrimental for him and for the administration, so I think we made that very clear.
But things that we can work together are things like cancer. He is very much the President-elect, is very much focused on the cancer. He has seen a lot of his friends and people that he knew dying from cancer. And he keeps asking every time I meet, what are we doing with cancer and can we cure it? And I think that's an opportunity to try to build programs that will accelerate the cancer development.
Excellent. Pivoting to maybe the 2025 outlook for Pfizer, I know we're fresh off your guidance call. Can you just talk a little bit about the company's approach to setting expectations for this year, and maybe as part of that, just the visibility you have into the business as maybe the COVID piece of the franchise has become a bit less volatile than we've seen in the last four or five years.
I think that's the biggest change between 2024 and 2025. The COVID, in 2024, when we gave guidance, we were coming out of a major, let's say, miscalculation of what the COVID revenues would be. There was a lot of uncertainty because we were coming commercial with Paxlovid, which is half of our COVID business, more or less. And going commercial was a very big step. And we had also renegotiated the contracts with Europe. So there was a lot of uncertainty. So we were more, let's say, cautious with the way that we gave guidance, particularly in the COVID business. Eventually, in three quarters, we exceeded COVID and non-COVID business, and we beat in all three fronts. This year is more of a normal guidance. We feel quite confident for the numbers that we are putting out there. We reconfirmed our guidance on 2024 just in December.
Within the 2024 guidance, we reconfirmed also our COVID revenues of approximately $5 billion and $5.5 billion, Paxlovid and Comirnaty. We feel very comfortable that we will achieve the goals in 2024. We feel very comfortable about the projections that we gave in 2025 that includes COVID. We didn't separate it, but we said that COVID should be stable in terms of utilization.
Yeah. Just maybe more broadly, just talk about the key pushes and pulls for this year. What should we be most focused on in terms of those opportunities and anything balanced against that?
There are a lot, as always. I think let's start with the COVID stability. We expect that vaccination rates will remain as they are in 2024, which were very low, right? So everything that we were able to achieve in 2024, we expect to reach in 2025. I don't think that there is downside in that at all. When it comes to Paxlovid, it's highly, highly correlated with the waves of COVID. And we measure one of the most accurate measures of that. It is the wastewater viral, let's say, concentration, which CDC has a very wonderful site that you can see how it evolves. It's identical the last three years. It's two waves every year. And our sales of Paxlovid is identical, two waves of sales in Paxlovid every year. So COVID, we expect stability. Key IRA is another important variant there.
We did say that we expect a $1 billion negative impact because of the IRA. In reality, it is more or less $1.5 billion reduction of our sales because of higher rebates that we are asked to pay, and there is $500 million higher sales because of volume. The net is $1 billion, so that is already calculated. The new products, the acquisition products will continue growing. Seagen, we expect to have strong performance, will continue growing. Nurtec, we expect to continue growing. We expect challenges to continue with migraines, so we calculated that over there. On PCV, on Prevnar, our assumptions were that we will see a modest decline when we gave the guidance. This is constant in the pediatric, but let's say decline because of competition in the adults. Those are more or less the puts and takes on the revenues. On the cost, continuous improvement.
We gave a $500 million reduction of the SI&A, so I think that we will achieve that, as I said, without waves of restructuring. It's technology that enables us to do that and efficiencies and margins expansion.
Yeah. Can I just, looking past 2025, just how are you thinking about the overall growth profile for Pfizer shaping up both top line and from a margin perspective?
Yes. I have been burned by giving long-term projections in the past and I keep some distance from doing that.
Sure. Sure.
We gave guidance for 2025, and we will give guidance for 2026, but I can repeat some conceptual how to think about 2025 to 2030. There is clearly an LOE wave that is coming that will cost us $17 billion-$18 billion, and it's coming in gradually, 2026 and 2027, 2028, so those will reduce revenues by $17 billion-$18 billion. Our products that we acquired, we expect that we will deliver $20 billion of revenues by 2030, and we feel comfortable that this will happen, so more or less, I can say the product that we acquired will offset and provide a little bit of head in growth, the LOE products, and then we have the products that we launched so far and the pipeline that is coming.
And that, I think, it is where most of the also difference and the gap comes between our expectations and the street expectations on some of these new product launches, which admittedly in 2023 were not very impressive. but in 2024, they progressed dramatically up. and so that's the puts and takes.
And on the margin front, I know you've articulated an opportunity for the gross margins to improve over time. What needs to be done to get that margin improvement? Is that just, do you have a lot of line of sight on that?
I have a lot of line of sight. There is a very specific program that we implement, and we have timelines and costs. We do feel that we will come to pre-COVID margins over time. For this year, we said that it will be mid-70s, right? Coming to pre-COVID means to go closer to 80s, high 70s, close to 80s. Why the margin deteriorated? It worked for several reasons. One was the vaccine had low margin because we were sharing half of that with BioNTech. Also, the vaccine and Paxlovid created a tremendous manufacturing infrastructure that was built to support $3 billion of the world, right? That reduced, of course, increased the cost of manufacturing. Then we had a lot of new products that are growing proportionally.
The new products are having always lower margin because you do all the investment, but the investment is absorbed with smaller volumes until the volumes pick up. And then fourth, we had a lot of acquisitions. Seagen is a good example that most of their manufacturing was outsourced. So they were coming with modest, lower margins than what we have in Pfizer. All of that, we are tackling. We have taken down most of the COVID infrastructure and we continue doing that. So we can scale it up if we want, but right now we have it down. So that creates a lot of momentum. We are insourcing a lot of the products, and we have a program to do that as they are coming in. And we hope that as the volumes increase with the new products, also will go up.
But the most important things will come from a $1.5 billion efficiencies program that we announced between 2025 and 2027. And we have a very clear line of sight, which is basically reduction of overhead costs. And with the implementation of AI already, the implementations that we did in 2024 resulted in significant yields improvement. And so it's very clear. Last but not least, the biggest part is when you reconfigure your manufacturing network. We have almost 40 manufacturing sites. Some of them, they operate in very high capacity. Some of them not. We have a plan to consolidate that and then bring the margin. So it's very clear to me we have a path to go there, and we will see constant improvement.
Great. Maybe pivoting to the pipeline, that seems like the critical piece to the story over the next few years. What are you most excited about and most focused on at this point as we think about over the next, whether it's 12 months or 24 months in terms of the pipeline reporting out?
Yes. This year, we expect to start 13 phase III studies, and we expect also critical readouts for eight of them that will happen this year, more or less, right, but because we may get lost in big numbers, let me be more specific. I'll tell you what things excite me the most. Oncology, I will speak about CDK4. It's something that really excites. We have the two ADCs from Seagen that they have very high potential. We have plenty ADCs from Seagen. But two that I will separate, it is the SV, which is basically the IB6, the vedotin ADC, and the PD-L1 ADC. And we can speak later if you have an interest in all of these products, and last in oncology, I will mention Elrexfio.
Elrexfio is probably where we have the highest gap between what the street is projecting and what we believe that we will do. We based our beliefs on data, and we can discuss a little bit later, but those are the four products I think that are very important in oncology. Going to vaccines, I will emphasize two. The next generation Prevnar, we are starting a 25-valent this year, and we hope to start probably next year. Pivotal one, we are developing a 30+. So that's a very important piece, and the C. diff, Clostridium difficile. We think we have a very good path to success for a vaccine for a disease that is devastated. There are no vaccines out there, and they are causing 600,000 hospitalizations and 15,000, 16,000 deaths according to CDC every year. So it's an important healthcare issue without prevention.
So those two I would mention. In, let's say, metabolic or internal medicine, I would mention the new Paxlovid. I think that's a very important product because we will expand the utilization of antiviral for COVID in eligible population because it doesn't have the DDIs, which is the problem that Paxlovid is perceived by some physicians. Of course, Danu, we'll see how that will go. And on the other end of the spectrum, Ponsegramab, which is our cachexia. And in I&Is, the assets that I will emphasize are more younger, earlier in the pipeline, but there are two trispecifics. So those are things pretty broad across the board. But those that I mentioned, I mentioned them because they are mega blockbusters according to us. So it's not $1 billion. It is, let's say, big, $3 billion plus products.
It seems like your comments today and some of your recent comments have pointed to maybe more prioritization towards these kind of mega products within the pipeline. W hat does that process look like as we think about a new Head of R&D coming on board? Should we think about the pipeline maybe being a little more focused going forward or prioritized more than we've seen over the past few years? Just talk a bit about what we should expect with Chris stepping into the new role.
Absolutely. You should expect that exactly. When I try to understand Pfizer's productivity, when I see the productivity of Pfizer in terms of volume, how many products, and technically challenging products, not easy products, we were able to get through the finish line. Actually, our top quartile, we had 13 approvals in 2024, 13 approvals, and we had equal number, I think bigger in 2023, so we have tremendous volume of things. And also, when I see productivity in terms of success rates, time that it takes to complete a study, all of that, we are top. However, when I see the dollars that are coming out from new launches that came out from our pipeline, I see that we could have done way better, so why this is happening and what are the good news here? It is that we are not having an issue of capabilities in Pfizer.
Our machine in development is really stellar. Our early is stellar. Our pharma science, the medicinal science, the chemist, probably the best in the world, particularly in the small molecules. So in terms of capabilities, we are there. Oncology, vaccines, superpowers, right? But we put all these capabilities to work to products that they didn't deliver. Gene therapy is a good example. We announced that we exited them, right? Cost us a lot of money, took a lot of attention from management, from R&D. They were technically very challenging to develop, but they are selling nothing. So that was the challenge. So for us, I think we went to multiple things without really being very focused on where we should turn, let me put it, the guns, right? So that we can have these capabilities.
This is something that the only division that did extremely well on that was oncology, right? When Chris Boshoff is taking over, my expectation from him, it is one under his leadership to continue that with oncology, but also repeat it with all three other therapeutic areas that we could do a lot better. As I said, the good news is if it was a question of capabilities, that will take years to reshuffle. When it is a question of prioritization and selecting the right assets, this is way easier to achieve. It's not only Chris that is helping on that, but also we have Andrew Baum that came with that mandate to help us prioritize our pipeline and select really the assets that will deliver value for patients and shareholders. We won't get it correct all the time, like nobody will.
But I think we have room for significant improvement there.
When I just think about the absolute R&D spend, are you happy with the amount of dollars spent now? I'm trying to get a sense of like, does that, as you are focusing on some assets, deprioritizing others, is that cost savings we should think about o r is this more freeing up resources to put into those?
It's more the second. I think the overall size of our R&D, which is around $11 billion or whatever, it is at 18% of our revenues, which is on the low end of the industry, so if anything, I would like to see that going up, but I don't think I have the conviction right now that we will take that up, but we will maintain that $11 billion. However, we have identified significant opportunities with Chris to take a lot of efficiencies in R&D and to reduce costs in several areas of our R&D, but we will reinvest all of that back in R&D, right? For example, in manufacturing, every efficiencies that we are gaining, they fall to the bottom line, 100%. In SI&A, big part of the efficiencies that we are accomplishing are going down to the bottom line.
Part of that is reinvested to A& P. It's reinvested to all the synergies that we are generating and the savings into promoting the business. For R&D, 100% will go back to R&D.
Okay. Excellent. Maybe pivoting to some of the individual pipeline assets, starting with Danu, I know it's still a big area of focus for folks. Just as we think about the upcoming PK studies that you'll be looking at data, what are you looking for in those studies to inform a phase III decision? And maybe just characterize your overall level of excitement around Danu at this point.
I'm very cautious with Danu because Danu have been burnt. And I don't want to create neither false expectations or positive or negative. It is exactly as we have said it. In Danu, we are working now on once a day formulation. This is about pharmacokinetics. We think we found the right ones after did a lot of experiments. And now we are in dose optimization of those formulations. We will have the data in a few months. And then we will see if really we can basically replicate the results that we had in phase IIb study because Danu has been tested in more than 1,600 people. So it's not, let's say, something that it is a few hundred people. It's a lot of people. Then we will feel comfortable that we can go with once a day.
And this is when probably, as I said, if we succeed that, we will start a phase III in the second part of the year. With Danu, we expect that we'll have a competitive profile and probably will be second if we stick to our timelines. And if the others, they don't accelerate or they don't delay, I expect that Lilly will come with an oral before us if they are successful. Then I think it will be us that will come with an oral if we are successful. And then there are other two that will come two years intervals, more or less, one from the other. So big opportunity. It's not going to be like Mounjaro, Danu, but it's going to be second oral in a market that has a lot of potential for growth.
If you do move to phase III, just talk a little bit about the breadth of the phase III you'd envision. Is this something that you would need to run kind of a full spectrum of studies with outcomes, etc. o r is there a way to kind of maybe just look at weight loss or HbA1c in a way that maybe is a little bit?
We are analyzing all scenarios, scenarios with the full-blown, with outcomes. We have scenarios that it is focused on weight loss, and we are seeing what creates higher value. Also, of course, we see that in connection with other products in our pipeline or things that we are thinking from the outside, so it is something that we will see. We are still working on it, and we will make decisions when time is appropriate.
Maybe just the last topic on this, just obesity more broadly. Just talk about your ambitions here as you think about not just Danu, but as a portfolio of assets within Pfizer.
We are all in. We are going to build our teams. We have very strong metabolic expertise in Pfizer through the years. We are recruiting experts in obesity over the last, let's say, 12 months, 13 months, 14 months, so they are helping us now make better and more sound decisions. We have a GIPR that is following and the GLP-1 follow-on molecule, so in terms of GLP, we are in the oral space, and we don't need to go outside because we have our own. I don't think that a GLP injectable will be of interest to us from the BD perspective right now because probably it's a little bit too late.
But other mechanisms of action in the injectable space or in the oral, we are really looking at everything in the market because I think we have the capabilities to develop it and to sell it, which is very important.
Maybe moving over to the oncology portfolio, you highlighted the CDK4 as one of the priority assets. Just talk about how you think about the opportunity maybe first and second line, but also the potential in first line to maybe kind of beat the current standard of care of the CDK4/6s?
I think in CDK4, we are fully committed to develop it in first line. The reason is because of the profile of the product. It's very benign. As we all know, the CDK4/6 changed the paradigm. But the four, it is what brings the efficacy. The six is what brings most of the toxicities. And that's why we need, for example, Ibrance. It's three doses treatment, three weeks, and one week break, three weeks and one week break because four weeks could be quite toxic for the patients. With that one, with the CDK4, you minimize really the issues with the toxicity. So we have constant. And we have achieved very, very high dose escalation. So 90% of the maximum doses were taken by more than 85% of our patients. So the profile really is ideal for first line because it's very benign.
Second line, we have other assets like CDK4/6, etc. But we are very much keen to develop and we started already. Actually, we started phase III on that.
It sounds like your view is this is a first line drug that.
First line drug with significant benefits compared to the current standard of care.
Great. Maybe just then going over to the SV opportunity. I know you've outlined a number of phase III studies here. Can you just speak to the overall opportunity you see with that asset and what you're most excited about?
Which one?
With SV, with the.
SV, yes. Look, the SV is using, is a new ADC. It's targeting the IB6, which is a protein that is expressed a lot in cancer cells. And it's using the Vedotin, which is a proven toxic, let's say, payload to attack, let's say, those cancers. Now, the IB6, it is particularly expressed in lung cancer. So in 90% of the non-small cell lung cancers, they are expressing this protein. So our first study started in second line, non-small cell lung cancer. And we are about to start in the first line right now. So that's a medicine that will be developed for lung cancer, full speed. And also, we are exploring first line in head and neck because that's another cancer that has very high expression of the IB6.
So SV, if it is technically successful, and right now the data that we have seen are extremely encouraging, that will be a mega blockbuster.
What are the timelines we can think about when we can start to see some of that data?
I know when we started the studies, I don't remember when they read out. And they are event driven, as you see. And in the first line, usually takes more time. But I remind you that lung cancer is the cancer that has the highest mortality of all cancers in the U.S. So a big opportunity there.
Yeah. Another one of the ADCs you mentioned, the PD-L1 vaccine. That seems to be one where I know you have a lot of excitement. The street's trying to still get their hands around the opportunity. So talk about the indications you're looking at there first. And again, maybe the level of excitement here relative to some of the other ADCs you have in development.
Yeah. It's targeting. It's the same concept in this ADC, Vedotin again, which is the payload. But right now, it's targeting PD-L1. It's not interfering like the immunotherapies into the PD-1, PD-L1, let's say, interaction. What it's doing, it is trying to identify cells with PD-L1, which are the cancer cells, and attacks them. So that's basically what is happening, and we will develop it in head and neck. We are starting right now, but we have a program for multiple cancers because, as you know, PD-L1 is expressed basically in a lot of cancers, right? Not the same everywhere, but in a lot of cancers.
But we can think about this going into a lot of those settings that have high PD-L1 expression would be.
This is, of course, will be the lowest hanging fruit. I think we have seen it even with low. We have seen good data even with low PD-L1 expression. But clearly, the no brainer it is you go with high PD-L1 cancers and probably in combinations with immunotherapy.
Another one you mentioned was the next generation Paxlovid. Just talk about the.
But I mentioned Elrexfio also, which I wanted to say a few things about that.
Yeah.
One, it is that our enthusiasm with that is because, first of all, when you see data, we do think that we have potentially best in class in terms of treating. And I'm talking about durability. We have right now in people that achieved remission, we had an interim. We haven't reached median progression after three years. So that's very durable, this response, right? So it's not something that it is. And also that right now we have launched it in triple refractory, which has an overall population between Europe and U.S. of 15,000 patients. We are expecting to receive now a readout this year from the second class, double refractory. The population of this, it is double than the population of the first one that we have. So we are tripling the population that is addressable if this indication is positive.
Of course, the duration of treatment for this indication compared to the triple that the people, they don't make it that easily. It is way longer. Then we are following with first line, and so we have four phase III studies over there, so I think it's very exciting.
How big of an opportunity could this be for Pfizer?
Look, I know that the street has it in, I don't know, way smaller number than us. There is no other asset that we have such a big gap in our projections compared to what I have seen in the street, and I don't know if the truth is in the middle or if we are highly optimistic if the street doesn't see a few things, but I would encourage everyone to see the data and speak to our people about that asset because I think it's highly, highly, the potential is very high.
We should think about that kind of steadily building up over time as those four.
The studies are running for a long time now, right, so we had the first one, we launched. The second one will read out this year. We tripled the population, and then we go to 5x and 10x , so it's very big.
The last couple of minutes here, I mentioned the next generation Paxlovid. Just talk about how big of an opportunity is there to how much of an issue is there with the drug-drug interaction?
Paxlovid right now, particularly in the U.S., is utilized quite heavily. And it is exactly following, as I said, we saw in the third quarter a graph in our earnings call that we saw the wastewater variability and then the Paxlovid scripts. They are really matching one another. But there is a lot of reluctance from many physicians to prescribe it. And we don't have a product like that in Pfizer, at least, and I don't think anybody else that the patients will call so much the physicians, please give it to me. And they will say, I don't think you need it, right? The reality is that what is challenging for physicians, it is that 40% of the eligible people, they are taking medicines that they have drug interactions with Paxlovid. Statins is one of these, for example. The solution is very easy. And it has been recommended.
You stop statins for five days. You take Paxlovid. And you continue. It's not that your statins is a chronic medicine. Paxlovid is not a chronic medicine. It's five days treatment. But still, that creates a reluctance. The new one has even better pharmacokinetics and killing ratios of the virus than Paxlovid and doesn't have any DDIs. Also doesn't have this dysgeusia, which is also associated with this metallic taste. So we think that it's not only the next step so that we can have a life cycle of Paxlovid, but also will create bigger opportunity, will expand the market.
Excellent. We're just about time. Albert, really appreciate all the comments today. Thank you for joining us.
Thank you.