Eli Lilly and Company

Thank you for holding. We look forward to talking with you soon. Please hold the line and we'll be right back with you.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by and welcome to the Lillie Q4 2023 earnings call. At this time, all participants are on a listen-only mode. Later, we will be conducting a question and answer session and instructions will be given at that time. Should you request assistance during the call, please press star then zero and an operator will assist you offline. I would now like to turn the conference over to your host, Joe Fletcher, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Good morning and thank you, Paul. Thanks for joining us for Lillie and Company's Q4 2023 earnings and 2024 guidance call. I'm Joe Fletcher, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Joining me on today's call are Dave Ricks, Lillie's Chair and CEO, Anant Ashkenazi, Chief Financial Officer, Dr. Dan Skabronski, Chief Scientific Officer and President of Lillie Immunology, Anne White, President of Lillie Neuroscience, Ilja Jufa, President of Lillie International, Jake Van Narden, President of Loxo at Lillie, and Patrick Johnson, President of Lillie Diabetes and Obesity and Lillie USA. We're also joined by Michaela Irons, Mike Strangnether and Lauren Zerke of the Investor Relations team. During this conference call, we anticipate making projections and forward-looking statements based on our current expectations, actual results that could differ materially due to several factors, including those listed on slide three. Additional information concerning factors that could cause actual results to differ materially is contained in our latest form 10-K and subsequent forms 10-Q and 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The information we provide about our products and pipeline is for the benefit of the investment community. It's not intended to be promotional and is not sufficient for prescribing decisions. As we transition our prepared remarks, please note that our commentary will focus on non-GAAP financial measures. Now I'll turn the call over to Dave.

All right. Thanks, Joe. 2023 was a year of advancement across our company. We grew our top line. We progressed our pipeline, advanced our external innovation agenda through partnerships and collaborations. We continue to invest in quality, the reliability and the resilience of our company's manufacturing infrastructure, and most importantly, delivered new life-saving and life-changing medicines to more patients. In 2023, revenue grew 20% for the full year and 28% for the most recent quarter as our newly launched portfolio continued to gain momentum. This past year, we announced positive Phase 3s for Dononimab, Terzepotide, Myrchizomab and Pertibutinib. We also announced a positive Phase 2 result for Orphoglipron as well as Richatutide and moved these two important molecules into Phase 3. In terms of external innovation, in 2023, we continue to complement our pipeline through acquisitions and collaborations. These transactions included the acquisition of Dice Therapeutics, Point Bio-Pharma, Bersanus Bio, Emergence Therapeutics, Mablink Biosciences, Immunotrac, as well as Siglon Therapeutics. We announced several significant investment investments in manufacturing, including plans to expand capacity at the company's Research Triangle Park Facility and the two manufacturing sites within the Leap Innovation Park in Boone County, Indiana. Most recently, we announced plans to construct a new high-tech manufacturing site in Germany. This facility will further expand the company's global injectable product and device manufacturing network, including for our diabetes and obesity portfolio. Most importantly, this past year, we brought innovative new medicines to patients. In 2023, we received regulatory approvals for ZepBound, J-Perca, Omvo, EBGles in the US, in the EU rather, and an expanded label for Virzeneo and two new indications for Jardians. This progress will serve as a foundation to drive top-tier revenue growth and margin expansion over time. As you can see on slide four, we continue to make progress against our strategic deliverables in Q4. Revenue grew 28% with our new products growing by over $2 billion. Since our last earnings call, we achieved several key pipeline milestones. In addition to the ZepBound and J-Perca CLL approvals, today we announced top-line results for the Trisepatide Phase II Synergy NASH trial, as well as the Virzeneo Phase III Cyclone II trial. Dan will talk more about these updates in his update. In terms of business development, in Q4, we completed the acquisitions of Mavlink Bioscience and PointBioPharma, the latter of which expands our capacity and capability into radio ligand therapies. Lastly, we announced a 15% dividend increase for the sixth consecutive year and distributed over $1 billion in dividends in the fourth quarter. On slide five, you'll see a list of key events since our Q3 earnings call, including several important regulatory, clinical, and other updates. Now I'll turn the call over to Anant to review our Q4 results. Thanks,

Dave. Slide six summarizes financial performance in the fourth quarter of 2023, and I'll focus my comments on non-GAP performance. We are pleased with the strong financial performance in the fourth quarter and for the full year. Our performance was highlighted by continued acceleration of revenue growth, driven by our new products and growth products. Q4 revenue increased 28% compared to Q4 2022, excluding divestiture that represents a -over-quarter acceleration revenue growth, driven by Monjaro, Virzeneo, Jardians, and the recent launch of ZetBound. For the full year, revenue increased 20%, driven by robust volume growth of 16%. Growth margin as a percent of revenue increased to 82.3%. Growth margin in the quarter benefited from higher realized prices, partially offset by higher manufacturing expenses. Marketing, selling, and administrative expenses increased 17%, primarily driven by higher expenses associated with launches of new products and additional indications, as well as higher incentive compensation costs. R&D expenses increased 28%, primarily driven by higher development expenses for late-stage assets and additional investments in early-stage research, as well as higher incentive compensation costs. In Q4, we recognized acquired IPR&D charges of $623 million, which negatively impacted ETS by $0.62. In Q4 2022, acquired IPR&D charges totaled $240 million or a $0.23 negative impact to ETS. Operating income increased 29% in Q4, driven by higher revenue from new launches, partially offset by operating expense growth. Operating income as a percent of revenue was approximately 28% for the quarter and included a negative impact of approximately 7 percentage points attributable to acquired IPR&D charges. Our Q4 effective tax rate was .1% compared to .3% in Q4 2022. The higher effective tax rate for Q4 2023 was primarily driven by a lower net discrete tax benefit compared to the same period in 2022 and the new Puerto Rico tax regime. At the bottom line, we delivered earnings per share of $2.49 in Q4, a 19% increase compared to Q4 2022, inclusive of the negative impact of $0.62 from acquired IPR&D charges compared to $0.23 in Q4 2022. On slide 8, we quantified the effective price, rate, and volume on revenue growth. US revenue increased 39% in Q4, driven by robust growth of Monjaro, Versenio, and ZipBound. Net price in the US increased 27% for the quarter, driven by Monjaro access and savings parts dynamic, as well as a one-time favorable change in estimates for rebates and discounts. Excluding Monjaro, net price in the US decreased by high single digits. Europe continued a strand of strong growth in Q4, excluding $65 million revenue associated with milestones received for the EU approval and launch of EGLIS. Revenue was up 11% in constant currency, driven primarily by volume growth of Versenio, Jardins, and Taubes. For Japan, we were pleased to see robust growth in Q4, as revenue increased 15% in constant currency, driven primarily by volume growth of Versenio and Monjaro. Moving to China, Q4 revenue increased 7% in constant currency, with volume growth of 10% partially offset by price decline. Volume growth in Q4 was primarily driven by pivots. We were pleased to see China return to growth in 2023. Revenue in the rest of the world decreased 10% in constant currency. However, when you exclude the impact of the Q4 2022 sales of rights for Limpen Korea and Taiwan, sales grew 9% in constant currency, driven primarily by volume growth of Monjaro and Versenio. Slide 9 shows the contribution to worldwide volume growth by product category. As you can see, the new products and growth product categories combined contributed approximately 15 percentage points of volume growth for the quarter. Slide 10 provides additional perspective across your product categories. First, I would like to highlight Versenio, which saw worldwide sales growth of 42% in Q4, driven by robust demand growth and to a lesser extent, high realized prices. The continued positive momentum is driven by the early breast cancer indications, with steady performance in the metastatic indications. Jardins continued a strong 2023 performance, with worldwide revenue growth of 30% for the quarter. In the US, Jardin revenue increased 29%, driven by increased demand. In Q4, worldwide trolicity revenue declined 14%. US revenue decreased 18%, driven by lower volume and lower realized prices. We experience intermittent delays for filling orders of trolicity. Starting in early December and going through January, all dose strengths of trolicity were indicated as having limited availability on the FDA drug shortage site. We expect to experience intermittent delays for filling orders of certain doses in the coming months. In international markets, trolicity volume continued to be affected by measures we have taken to minimize potential disruption to existing patients, including communications to healthcare professionals, not to start new patients on trolicity. Moving to Slovenia, Monjaro continued its robust growth as more Type 2 diabetes patients benefited from the medicine. Q4 revenue grew to over $2.2 billion globally, up from $1.4 billion in Q3 2023. In the US, Monjaro revenue of $2.1 billion in Q4, up from $1.3 billion in Q3 2023, benefited from a one-time change in estimates for rebates and discounts. Adjusting for this one-time change, sequential net sales in the US would have grown approximately 30% in Q4. Since our last call, we further expanded patient access to Monjaro. As of February 1, access for patients with Type 2 diabetes in the US was 90% in aggregate across commercial and Part D, including 92% access for commercial patients. This expanded access puts Monjaro near parity with established injectable increments and gives more patients the opportunity to start therapy on Monjaro for Type 2 diabetes. Since the $25 non-covered copay card program expired on June 30, we now consider all prescriptions paid. Compared to Q4 2022, Monjaro net price in Q4 2023 benefited from this change to the copay card program in the US. Recall that after a change to the non-covered copay program in late 2022, patients already started on the $25 copay card could remain in the program until June 30. Today, commercial insurance patients without coverage utilize the current non-covered copay program and pay roughly half the list price from Monjaro prescription. Turning to slide 12, in November we received FDA approval for Zephthound for adults with obesity or those who are overweight and have weight-related comorbidities. We then announced on December 5 that Zephthound was available at US pharmacies and we started building commercial formulary access before the end of the year. We were pleased with the early access of approximately one-third of commercial lives covered as of February 1. Access in this market will be more gradual as individual employers need to opt-in to coverage after the typical formulary contracting takes place. We are focused on building formulary access and employer opt-ins, but we expect that it will take some time before we reach broad open access in this market. Meanwhile, a commercial savings card program is available at US pharmacies for those who do not yet have coverage. In Medicare Part D, weight loss drugs are still prohibited from reimbursement. In Q4, we recognized $176 million in sales for Zephthound, with approximately three-fourths of that coming from initial channel stocking. The initial prescription trends we have seen are encouraging. On slide 13, we provide an update on capital allocation. Looking forward to 2024 and beyond, we have confidence in our existing commercial portfolio bolstered by the recent launches of Monjaro, J-Perka, Amvo, and Zephthound, and the potential launches of Denonimeth and Labrachizumeth, all of which we expect to serve as drivers for continued growth through the balance of the decade. On slide 14, you'll see a summary of our outlook outlined in our capital deployment decisions in relation to achievement of our strategic deliverables. We will invest in our current portfolio and in future innovation through R&D, business development, and a comprehensive manufacturing expansion agenda designed to drive revenue growth and speed life-changing medicines to patients. We will continue to return capital to our shareholders through dividend increases in line with earnings growth over time and sharing purchases with Access Capital. Moving to slide 15, we highlight some of the dynamics that may impact our 2024 financial results. We expect continued robust revenue growth with revenue from our core business, which excludes revenue from divestiture, growing nearly 30 percent at the midpoint of our guidance range, driven by positive momentum of recently launched products. In increments, anticipated growth will be led by Monjaro and Zephthound. In 2023, we made tremendous strides in expanding access from Monjaro, and we entered 2024 with 90 percent of commercial and R&D lives covered. Zephthound coverage is off to a good start since its early December launch, and we expect both Trisepatite Bray to contribute substantially to Lilly's revenue growth in 2024. While we expect Monjaro and Zephthound to be drivers of revenue growth, this will be partially offset by an expected continuation of the softer trolicity sales trends that we saw in the second half of 2023. Recent revenue declines for trolicity in the US have been driven by supply tightness. Volume has also been impacted by our actions outside the US. As for supply outlook for Ingrident, our manufacturing organization continues to execute well on the most ambitious expansion agenda in our company's long history. Given strong demand and time required to bring capacity fully online, we continue to expect demand to outpace supply in 2024. In late 2022, we shared our expectation that by year end 2023, our capacity for Ingrident onto injector pens would double. This goal was achieved through significant efforts from our manufacturing colleagues and partners around the globe. In 2024, our capacity expansion efforts will continue with equal urgency and will be accomplished not just through increased on-injector capacity, but also through alternative presentation like our multi-use quick pen, which received regulatory approval in the UK in late January. We expect our parental manufacturing site in Concord, North Carolina, will initiate production as early as the end of 2024, with product available to ship in 2025, and we are pursuing a host of other projects, internal and external, large and small, to further expand capacity. Now, I'll provide a bit more context on the timing and pace of our Ingrident supply plans in 2024. While we are continuing to expand supply every quarter, we expect the most significant production increases to come in the second half of the year. We expect our production of sellable doses in the second half of 2024 will be at least one and a half times the production in the second half of 2023. Note that while last year our commentary focused on capacity of auto-injector devices compared to 2022, we're now referring sellable doses produced, which is more relevant to patients and investors. Beyond Ingrident, we look forward to progressing our launch trajectory for two other leading medicine approved and launched in 2023, J-PERCA and ONVOPS. J-PERCA was initially approved by the FDA in January 2023 for adults patients with relapse or refractory mental cell lymphoma under the Accelerate Approval Program. Received FDA approval also under the Accelerate Approval Program in December 2023 for adults patients with CLL or SLL that have received at least two prior lines of therapy. We look forward to the ongoing opportunity to help patients with this medicine as our best phase three program continues. ONVO was approved in October 2023 in the US and earlier that year in Japan, Europe and other markets and represents a compelling new options for patients struggling with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis. And in 2024, we look forward to potential US launches of two more medicines, Denonimab and Labrakizumab. We continue to expect FDA regulatory actions on Denonimab in Q4 2024 and remain confident in the substantial potential for Denonimab to benefit patients with Alzheimer's disease. Due to the current state of diagnostic and treatment readiness, initial uptake will be somewhat limited and we expect Denonimab to contribute only modestly to growth in 2024 once approved. Labrakizumab, which last year was approved and launched in Europe under the brand name EBLIS by our partner Almirall, received regulatory approval in Japan in January. As for the US, we look forward to the potential approval of Labrakizumab by the end of the year. We believe the efficacy, safety and dosing of Labrakizumab can make it a compelling options for patients and prescribers in a large and growing market for the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. Given the expected timing of FDA regulatory action, we expect Labrakizumab to contribute only modestly to revenue growth in 2024. Beyond our recently launched portfolio of medicine, we expect continued growth from Virzeneo driven by the early breast cancer indication, where the magnitude and maturity of our clinical data reinforces it as a standard of care treatment in node positive, high-risk early breast cancer. Gerardiens has been another outstanding contributor to growth and we expect revenue growth to continue in 2024, though at a slower price, as strong strip growth may be dampened by price and dynamics in the US. Outside the US, we expect an acceleration of growth in every major geography, led not only by the anticipated launches of terzepotide, but also continued strong growth of Virzeneo, Gerardiens and TULPS. Lastly, we seek to create long-term value beyond this decade. We will continue to invest across our value chain in our recent and upcoming potential launches, in our pipeline and in our manufacturing footprint. Slide 16 summarizes our initial 2024 financial guidance. Starting at the top line, revenue is expected to be between $40.4 billion and $41.6 billion. Using the midpoint of the 2024 range, this represents roughly 20% growth or 29% growth for our core business, which excludes the impact of divestitures that took place in 2023. In terms of phasing of our revenue growth throughout 2024, while we don't provide quarterly guidance, we expect revenue growth to accelerate in the second half of the year, consistent with the increased availability of incretin doses. In terms of pricing for our core business, which excludes divestitures, we expect a high single-digit percent price decline in 2024. The lingering base period impact of the Manjaro non-covered copay card dynamics will dampen these price declines in the first half of 2024, with more significant price declines expected in the second half of the year. During this year, we are taking a streamlined approach to our guidance line items relating to expenses. Rather than providing three separate guidance line items for gross margin, research and development costs, and marketing and selling administrative costs, we are presenting a single new ratio representing our margin after plant costs calculated by subtracting R&D costs and marketing, selling and administrative costs from gross margin and development costs. Providing that figure by revenue. We express this ratio as a percentage, and for 2024, we expect it to be in the range of 31% to 33% on a non-GAAP basis. While we are not providing a specific guidance number for gross margin as a percent of sales, our expectations remain consistent, that we will maintain gross margin of approximately 80% on a non-GAAP basis, as productivity gains and volume are offset by pricing pressures and the cost of new manufacturing facilities. As for expense growth across key categories, we expect marketing, selling, and administrative expenses to again grow in 2024, though at a slower pace than revenues, with growth driven by marketing investments in our recently launched and upcoming launch products. We also expect R&D expenses in 2024 to increase, driven by growing investments across all phases of our pipeline as we invest for the future, with the majority of dollar growth driven by ongoing and new late phase opportunities. We expect R&D expense to increase at a higher rate than marketing, selling, and administrative expenses. Other income and expenses expected to be between $400 million and $500 million of expenses, primarily driven by higher interest expenses. Turning to taxes, we expect our 2024 non-GAAP effective tax rate to be approximately 14%. Note that this rate does not assume the thorough overview of the provision in the 2017 Tax Act requiring capitalization and monetization of research and development expenses for tax purposes. Should such a change take effect, our effective tax rate for 2024 would be moderately higher. Earnings per share is expected to be in the range of $12.20 to $12.70 on a non-GAAP basis. Consistent with our prior practice, we are not including any potential or pending acquired IPR&D and development milestone charges in our 2024 guidance, and we will provide updates each quarter on the impact of IPR&D on earnings per share if acquired IPR&D and development milestone charges are incurred. For guidance modeling purposes, we are currently estimating diluted weighted average share outstanding for 2024 to be approximately $903 million. We enter 2024 with strong momentum and a remarkable opportunity to help millions more patients with our medicines. For our investors, 2024 should be another exciting year driven by expected revenue growth in our core business near and approaching 30% and continued investment to drive future growth. Our outlook for top-tier revenue growth and operating margin expansion remains on track. Now I'll turn the call over to Dan to highlight our continued progress in R&D.

Thanks, Anant. I'll start with our progress against diabetes, obesity, and complications thereof. Today we announced positive results from SynergyNASH, a Phase II study of terzapotide in adults with biopsy proven metabolic dysfunction associated steatohepatitis, also known as MASH. As shown on slide 17, the study met its primary endpoint with up to 74% of participants achieving an absence of MASH with no worsening of fibrosis at 52 weeks compared to less than 13% of participants reaching this endpoint on placebo. We are equally encouraged by results seen in the secondary endpoint evaluating improvement in fibrosis. While the study was not designed to be statistically powered to evaluate improvement in fibrosis, the study results showed a clinically meaningful treatment effect across all doses on the proportion of participants achieving a decrease of at least one fibrosis stage with no worsening of MASH to placebo. The adverse events were consistent with those observed in other clinical trials studying terzapotide in people living with obesity or type 2 diabetes. The full SynergyNASH results will be presented at a medical congress later this year. As you know, late last year we received FDA approval of ZepBound, which marks Lilly's first approved treatment for obesity. This is a landmark occasion for patients and for the field. ZepBound is the first and only approved treatment activating two incretin hormone receptors, GIP and GLP1, to tackle an underlying cause of excess weight. Also, in early stage development, we have now advanced our glucose sensing insulin receptor agonist for the treatment of diabetes into phase one

and our

long acting atrial natriuretic peptide for treatment of heart failure into phase one. We've advanced mastodotide into phase two for obesity as we've begun to dose patients in that study. We are pleased that early this year, our partner InnoVent reported positive results in the Phase III GLORI1 study of mastodotide in Chinese adults with obesity. InnoVent hopes the development and commercialization rights for mastodotide in China and Lilly retains the rights in the rest of the world. Moving to oncology. Today we shared that in the Phase III cyclone II trial, Brisenio added to abiraterum did not meet the primary endpoint of improved radiographic progression free survival in men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer. For the study, we employed an adaptive Phase II-III design. And while the Phase II stage met the pre-specified threshold for the independent data monitoring committee to recommend initiation of Phase III, the signal was not confirmed in the Phase III portion in a larger sample size. The overall safety and tolerability profile was consistent with the known profiles of the medicines. We anticipate sharing full results from the Cyclone II study at a future medical meeting. Since our last earnings call, Jay Perka received approval under the FDA's Accelerated Approval Program for the treatment of adolescents with CLL or SLL who have received at least two prior lines of therapy, including a BTK inhibitor and a BCL2 inhibitor. We also reported that the Phase III confirmatory trial intended to convert this approval to traditional approval, known as BRU and CLL 321, met its primary endpoint, and we plan to present these data at an upcoming medical meeting. With the CLL and SLL approvals, Jay Perka is now the first and only FDA approved non-covalent BTK inhibitor that can extend the benefit of targeting the BTK pathway in CLL and SLL patients previously treated with a covalent BTK inhibitor and a BCL2 inhibitor. This was the second approval for Jay Perka in 2023, with the first in patients with MCL. We believe these two indications only represent the beginning of the eventual impact Jay Perka can have for patients, and we look forward to seeing the data from the rest of the Phase III program across CLL, SLL, and MCL. In Q4, we completed the acquisition of Pointe Biopharma, which begins Lilly's entry into radioligand therapy, a promising technology with potential to deliver meaningful advances against a range of cancers. We welcome our new Pointe colleagues to Lilly, and we look forward to building on their work to grow this capability at Lilly. 2024 is also poised to be a particularly productive year for new clinical starts in oncology, as we begin to see the results of the new oncology R&D strategy that we implemented about four years ago after the LOXO acquisition. Through a combination of internal discovery efforts and business development,

we expect to

put at least five new molecules into the clinic this year. A wild type selective KRAS G12D inhibitor, a pan KRAS inhibitor, two antibody drug conjugates with Tobisomerase payloads, one against nectin-4 and one against folate receptor alpha, and an actinium PSMA radioligand therapy. I'll speak in a moment about our clinical KRAS G12C program, but you can see that we're putting real effort into developing a suite of RAS-directed therapeutics, and we're excited to see those discovery efforts result in three potential medicines so far. Of course, we'll have to see which of these deliver on our target clinical profiles, but we're optimistic about this early phase portfolio, and we've certainly diversified the modalities in our pipeline. In addition, we're excited that Alomo-Rasin, our KRAS G12C inhibitor, has progressed into phase two as we're finalizing dose selection under Project Optimist for the phase three program, which we plan to start later this year. You can now see the full design of that study on clinicaltrials.gov. By way of reminder, we started this program years behind our competitors, and through focused effort behind what looks like a great molecule to us, we've made up the vast majority of that time. We believe we're now neck and neck with our closest competitors with a medicine that we hope to show combines better with PD-1. Lastly, in oncology, we've terminated development of our RET inhibitor two, as it did not meet our threshold to move forward with internal development. In immunology, we moved two new assets into phase one, and we advanced our KV1.3 antagonist for psoriasis into phase two. Labrakizumab was approved in the EU for atopic dermatitis under the brand name Epqus, which is marketed by our partner Omral there. In January of this year, we were pleased to have Epqus approved in Japan. In neuroscience, in January, our wholly owned subsidiary of KUOS announced positive clinical results for the Phase 1-2 -OTOF-101 study, which demonstrated hearing restoration within 30 days of a single administration in the first participant, an individual with more than a decade of profound hearing loss. The surgical administration and the investigational therapy were well tolerated, and no serious adverse events were reported. These results highlight our commitment to help solve some of humanity's most challenging healthcare problems and make life better for individual patients. We now show OTOP gene therapy in Phase 2 on our pipeline chart, as we've begun enrolling younger patients in the Phase 2 portion of the study. On slide 18, we highlight our select pipeline assets with updates of the last earnings call, and slide 19 summarizes our key events for 2023. I noted the key updates on each of these slides in my therapeutic area comments. Turning to slide 20, we'd like to highlight potential key events for 2024. As you can see, this year will be another important year as we look to progress our late stage pipeline. In 2023, we initiated Phase 3 development projects for our next generation of Inchertons, which are our oral agent for Glypron, and our novel weekly injectable triagonist, Reta Truetide. These programs are progressing and enrolling well.

We look forward

to seeing the first set of Phase 3 results on oral for Glypron next year. This year, we're planning to initiate a Phase 3 program in Type 2 diabetes for Reta Truetide, complementing the ongoing trials in obesity and related complications. Also this year, we're planning to initiate a Phase 3 program for Lepidocerin, our LPA-lowering siRNA therapy in cardiovascular disease. On Terzepatide, we're looking forward to a number of additional key data readouts this year. Beyond SynergyNASH, we expect to see results from the Phase 3 obstructive sleep apnea and Phase 3 heart failure studies this year. We know increased investor interest in the timing of surpassed CBOT, and we can reiterate that we expect the data in 2025, notwithstanding the clinicaltrials.gov listing, which will be updated soon to reflect our current assumptions based on event rate.

By the

end of 2024, we expect to have results of Surmount 5,

which is our

-to-head study of Terzepatide compared to high dose semiglutide in participants with obesity. We also expect the full Phase 3 program readout on our weekly basal insulin, insulin F-sitora alpha, later this year. Moving to neuroscience, we're looking forward to FDA action and the potential launch of TENENIMAP in Q1 of this year, and we're progressing with regulatory reviews around the world. We've now launched our PTAL217 blood-based diagnostic test, and we will continue to scale this throughout 2024. We'll also continue to partner with others in the field to ensure physicians have multiple tools to aid in timely and accurate diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. In immunology, following the Merikizumab positive Phase 3 data at Crohn's disease, we plan to submit to the FDA for this indication this year. Additionally, following the US FDA complete response letter on Leverikizumab, we expect regulatory action by the end of the year in the US. Finally, in oncology, as I mentioned before, we look forward to moving our KRST12C inhibitor, olomoracin, into Phase 3 later this year following Phase 2 dose selection. Lastly, we're looking forward to seeing the results of our Imlunestrin Phase 3 study, Embr3, in participants with metastatic breast cancer in both monotherapy and in combination with Verzatium. This past year was busy and productive, and we expect more of the same in 2024 as we make meaningful progress advancing our pipeline for the benefit of patients. And I turn the call back to Bozey Remarks.

Thanks, Dan, and congrats to you and the LRL team for a big year. Before we go to Q&A, let me briefly sum up our progress in the fourth quarter. Q4 revenue growth accelerated as our recently launched product portfolio continued to gain momentum. We achieved meaningful advances in our late stage pipeline with the FDA approvals of ZepBound and JPerca. We continue to invest in recent and upcoming launches, late stage medicines, early phase capabilities, and in business development, all of which will serve as a foundation for future growth. In Q4, we completed the acquisition of Point Biopharma and announced plans to build a new manufacturing site in Germany. We returned over $1 billion to shareholders via the dividend. Lastly, in January, we announced that Jonna Norton, our executive vice president of global quality, will be retiring at the end of July after 34 years of service. During her tenure, Jonna has overseen significant expansion, modernization, and improvements in our quality manufacturing processes. I'd like to thank her for her many years of outstanding service to Lilly. Now I'll turn the call over to Joe to moderate our Q&A session.

Thanks, Dave. Before I dive into the Q&A, I wanted to clarify one point. We may have had some muffled sound during announce prepared remarks regarding the timing of regulatory action on Dananumab. And as Dan mentioned, that timing is expected to be Q1 of 2024 this year. We received some notes that there was some muffled sound, so just wanted to clarify from that important point. Now for Q&A, we'd like to take questions from as many callers as possible and conclude the call in a timely manner, so consistent with prior quarters. We'll respond to one question per caller, so after you limit to one question per caller, that will end the call at 11.15 a.m. If you have more than one question, you can re-enter the queue and we'll get to your question if time allows. Paul, please provide instructions for the Q&A and we're ready for the first caller.

Thank you. At this time, we will be conducting a question and answer session. If you have any questions, please press star one on your phone at this time. We ask that participants limit themselves to one question on today's call. If you do have a follow-up question, please rejoin the queue by pressing star one at any time. We also ask that while posing your question, you please pick up your handset of listening on speakerphone to provide optimum sound quality. And the first question today is coming from Terence Flynn from Morgan Stanley. Terence, your line is live.

Great. Thanks so much for taking the question. Congrats on all the progress. Just wondering for your GLIP franchise, XUS, you under index versus your key competitor. Just wondering what are some of the hurdles to closing that gap as we think about the ramp in 2024 but also into 2025? Thank you.

Thanks, Terence, for the question. I'll hand it over to Ilya Yufa, president of Lilly International, for that question. Great.

Thanks, Terence. As we think about Mount Jaro launches outside of the US, we have already launched in a number of select markets. We have a foundation to be competitive in many of our markets and we anticipate continued launches. We've just launched in file format in select markets outside of the US, namely in Australia, Canada, Germany, and Poland. And we just received a QuickPen approval in the UK and so we're anticipating launch there as we get additional regulatory approvals for our multi-use QuickPen. And we monitor our ramp up and capacity for supply. We'll continue to launch in other markets throughout the year. And so we anticipate further growth, anticipated for launches of Mount Jaro outside of the US and continue with that throughout the year as well as into 2025.

Thanks, Ilya. Paul, next question. Next question is coming from Chris Schott from JP Morgan. Chris, your line of life.

Great. Thanks so much. On ZEP Bound, it seems like you're making strong progress on coverage, but just interested in expectations for the remainder of this year as we think about just where coverage could go and just how to think about ASP. I guess the core question is, is it reasonable to think that most payers who cover will go V will add ZEP Bound this year? Thank you.

Thanks, Chris. I'll hand over to Patrick to comment on that question about ZEP Bound coverage.

Yes, thank you very much, Chris. As you stated, we are pleased. We are so early in launch with 35% commercial access, having contract resign and sign up. Our efforts moving forward will really be to continue to expand payer access. But not only, we will do that with a very disciplined approach as we did with Mount Jaro, but also to make sure that we get to employer opt-in. And as Anath alluded to in her prepared remarks, that's going to take some time. But we are assuming that with the current access we have, that our access will be along the lines of what the competition has referred to, around 50%. Let me just emphasize that when it comes to employer opt-in, there is not one reliable source for employer opt-in. So I think that's something that we need to continue to monitor and we'll come back with more data during coming earnings calls. So overall, a good start and we will continue our efforts to increase payer access. I think we're quite encouraged with what we've heard from the marketplace so far. Employer opt-in will take longer, but we believe that we are well positioned in that regards as well. Thanks,

Patrick. Next

question,

Paul. The next question is coming from Seamus Fernandez from Guggenheim. Seamus, your line is live.

Thanks very much and congrats on all the progress and success here. But I just wanted to get a quick sense from Dan. Do you see a prospect from Synergy Nash for accelerated approval and can you confirm that while clinically significant, the secondary end point of fibrosis stage improvement was not statistically significant? Thanks.

Thanks Seamus for the question. Dan?

Yeah, thanks Seamus. This data is really quite new to us, but we're really excited about it. We haven't had a chance yet to talk to the FDA here at all about next steps, but we're looking forward to having that opportunity. Of course, this was a small trial, about 190 participants, but it did use liver biopsies, of course, to assess the end points here. With respect to the improvement in fibrosis, I think I probably previously stated that I was unsure whether it would be possible for incretin-based therapies to reverse fibrosis in patients based on competitor readouts in the field. But really excited to see this data with clinically meaningful improvement in fibrosis. There's different doses, there's different statistical methods that can be applied here, accounting for dropouts, particularly in the placebo group. So we'll have to wait for the scientific presentation to see all of the P values there, but we're pretty positive on this data package as a whole and what this could mean for patients both in terms of stopping progression of Nash and reversing fibrosis.

Thanks Dan. All next question? The next question is coming from Umar Rafat from Evercore. Umar, your line is live.

Hi guys, thanks for taking my question. Dave, as you think about manufacturing build out in various sites, which is obviously very important for all the existing glyph demand, I'm curious, how are you balancing that dollar investment with your probabilities on orthoglyphs, clinical and commercial odds, especially with all the blinded data that's coming in? Thanks

Umar. Yeah, happy to answer that. Of course, as we enter this phase of really strong growth in the Inchertons, we're very focused on allocating capital, but top priority is creating new capacities. The gating factors are not really financial for us right now, so you can expect us to be investing fully. We're not slowing down because of cash flow or whatever. It's really a function of the technical capacities, both in people and in suppliers to be able to bring facilities online. That's particularly true in the parental side. Now you're referencing orthoglyphron. Here we do plan to build ahead of phase three at risk. I think given the probability we assess internally, as well as the opportunity on the other side of a positive phase three, we see that as a wise investment. And as we've commented on before, it relies, as you would know, on very different assets inside Lilly as well as outside of Lilly. So here you have organic chemistry, API and tablets and capsules. So it's a pretty different setup. So we're paralleling that with our robust injectable investments. And if we're wrong, okay, we'll have to eat that in the end if orthoglyphron isn't a strong product. But if it is, I think it does begin to change the math on supply in this category. And I think that's a bet worth taking. Thanks,

Dave. Paul, next question. The next question is coming from Tim Anderson from Wolf Research. Tim, your line is live.

Thanks. On surpassed CVOT, you mentioned it's slipped to 2025. I assume that implies the one interim look has come and gone. And then you're evaluating both non-inferiority and superiority. Would you agree that superiority is really what you need to show here? And what's your confidence in achieving that?

Thanks, Tim, for those couple of questions. Maybe we'll field the one on the interim look, Dan.

Yeah, sure. Well, thanks for that question, Tim. As you know, Lilly doesn't comment on interims. Probably most trials in our portfolio do have opportunities for interim looks. But that is not, I think, germane at all to the question on the timing on ClinTrials.gov, which was before and continues to be the time point at which we'll have final data. When we initially put that time point in the ClinTrials.gov, it was in early 2020. We hadn't started enrolling the trial yet. So that was based on our assumption on enrollment rates, but probably more importantly on event rates. And as the trial matures, we get a view on event rates. I know it's frustrating for investors and for us perhaps to wait a longer time to get events. But of course, that's great news for patients when the event rates are slower. Remembering that this is a -to-head trial with a drug, Juicidy, that we already know is active in preventing MACE events.

Thanks, Dan. Paul, next question. The next question is coming from Mohit Bansal from Wells Fargo. Mohit, your line is live.

Great. Thank you very much for taking my question and congrats on the progress. I have a question regarding your sleep apnea study. How much benefit do you think from baseline is required for this to be clinically meaningful? Is it 50% or more? And do you think the trial is big enough to seek a label in sleep apnea? Thank you.

Thanks, Mohit, for the question. Dan, back to you.

Yeah, thanks. There isn't really a well-established threshold for clinical meaningfulness in sleep apnea. Of course, the common-lease measure here is an index of how many apneic or hypoxic events a patient has while sleeping. Certainly, drugs in this category, I think, have great potential to improve that. We're excited to see what your Zephytide can see. Probably, in addition to the absolute percent improvement in AHA that we'll be looking for, I'd also like to see patients switching from one category, for example, intermediate to mild disease or things like that. So we'll be looking at a number of things to assess clinical meaningfulness here, but I'm quite optimistic.

Thanks, Dan. Next question. The next question is from Louise Chen from Cantor. Louise, your line is live.

Hi, thanks for taking my question. I wanted to ask you how you think about sizing the downstream opportunities for a GLP-1 such as Zephytide, maybe in NASH, some of the other indications that you're going after as well. Thank you.

Thanks, Louise, for that question. So about the downstream opportunities in NASH and elsewhere, Patrick, do you want to field that? Thank

you very much. I think there are two important aspects. The first one is when we refer to employer opt-in. I think employers are really looking actively into benefits of listing and to obesity medications. And whatever data we can generate here, being in the cardiovascular space, being in the USA or being in NASH and other indications, will be extremely important for increased employer opt-in. The second piece will be in Medicare Part D. As long as troia is not passed, I think data in those comorbidities will be critical to enable access for patients in Medicare Part D. So those are truly the key drivers for those indications.

Thanks, Patrick.

Paul, next question.

The next question is coming from Kerry Halford from Barenburg. Kerry, your line is live.

Thank you for taking my question. It's on to Zepatide obesity. I'm interested to hear why you've taken the decision not to launch under the Zepam brand outside the US, but rather seek a label expansion for weight loss to Mount Jaro. Does that relate to simplicity, perhaps faster reimbursement access? And I wonder if you foresee any risk here that ex-US governments prefer ultimately to keep diabetes and obesity budgets separate. Thank you.

Thank you, Kerry, for the questions. I'll hand over to Ilya to talk about the branding of Tris-Epatide OUS. Sure.

Yeah, so the Tris-Epatide OUS, it depends on a number of different factors, whether it's regulatory or competitive market dynamics. There are some payer dynamics as well. We don't anticipate that being a challenge in terms of negotiating reimbursement either for type 2 diabetes or for chronic weight management. We continue to have those discussions in a number of markets and are optimistic about our ability to commercialize under different brand scenarios.

Great. Thank you,

Ilya. Paul, next question. The next question is from Jeff Meacham from Bank of America. Jeff, your line is live.

Morning, guys. Thanks so much for the question. Dave, I know you guys formally announced Lilly Direct last fall. Should we view it as a platform that just streamlines access to providers and the LIMEDs or is there a monetization model or some market differentiation that could also play out over time? Thank you.

I can start, Patrick, jump in. Yeah, thanks for the question. The idea was really actually born out of the challenges patients face every day in the US and sometimes seeing doctors. And you'll note we have a doctor finder tool as well as telehealth partners on the platform for migraine, diabetes and obesity. Finding medicines in their pharmacies, that's been a challenge. And I think particularly as supplies are tight, many patients report driving to five, six, seven pharmacies to find the medicine they need. This simplifies that process. And then, you know, I think in addition, there's been a lot of noise about drugs that are illicit or copies or compounded versions of Zepfound or other weight loss drugs. And that's concerning to us. And I think it's concerning to patients. So by going to Lilly Direct, literally they have confidence in the supply. And finally, application of our savings programs has also been a challenge at the pharmacy counter. And that happens 100% of the time on Lilly Direct. We haven't thought about it as a way to create some new retail distribution business. It's a way to serve the patients that want our medicines better. That's sort of the frame we're in now. Early days, we're trying to develop it to be smoother, better, include more products over time, have better information about physicians and telehealth providers. So look for more developments there. But good start so far. A lot of energy and enthusiasm from the patient community. Thanks, Dave.

Paul, next question. The next question is coming from David Risinger from Lerink. David, your line is live.

Yes, thank you and congrats on today's updates. So my question is for Dave and Dan on lean muscle loss associated with Inquitin use. Could you help us understand Lilly's take on this debate and comment on terzepatides data to date relative to semaglutide? What I've observed is that surmount 1 showed a 3 to 1 to lean muscle loss ratio, whereas SEMA's step one trial showed a 1.5 to 1 ratio, albeit with slightly different assessment. Thank you. Thanks, Dave. Dan, feel that.

Thanks for your question. Maybe just starting with our take on lean versus fat mass. I think the ratio of lean to fat mass is an important thing to think about. Body composition, not just body weight matters to patients, for example, in risk of type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease, that body ratio seems to be important. The good news is that for patients on terzepatide, that ratio appears to improve. As you pointed out, they lose far more fat mass than lean mass.

And so

in every trial we've done at the end of the trial, if you measure body composition, it's better, a higher ratio of lean to fat than at the beginning of the trial. So we see this changing body composition as a benefit, a potential benefit of terzepatide to be further explored. Of course, it's also a benefit we want to further extend. You've seen us try to improve the total amount of body weight lost. We're also trying to improve the further improvement, I should say, the change in body mass composition. That's why you saw us inquire resents and experiment with drugs like the Magrimap. The numbers you quote from the terzepatide and some of the glutide studies seem right to me. Of course, they're not head to head studies, but it does raise a question here about whether there's a potential benefit of GIP1, GIP agonism here in addition to GLP1 agonism. That's probably the way I would interpret this data.

Thanks, Dan.

Paul, next question. The next question is coming from Evan Seigerman from BMO Capital Markets. Evan, your line is live.

Hi, all. Thank you for taking my question. I would love to hear your take on how you're thinking about the opportunity for the oral GLP1s. We've seen some mixed data from competitors, and I just would love to get how you see this evolving in context of your investment in oral glipron. Thank you.

Thanks, Evan, for the question. Patrick, maybe you'd talk about how we think about an oral agent.

Thank you very much. You know, when we look at the opportunity in obesity, we have more than 110 million in the US. We have 650 million globally. I think taking into account the current supply constraints across markets, it's impossible to reach all of those with injectables. So I think that's the big opportunity with our GIP1. And what we've seen so far in phase two, if we can replicate those data in phase three, we have an oral medicine here with a weight loss along with a glipron. And we're following the lines of the best competitive in protein, not at the level of the tepid, but at the level of the best in the marketplace and with no food or water restrictions. So we really see the opportunity here with our -de-prone to reach patients across the globe. And there is another component as well. If we look at the current market, approximately 20% of patients with obesity are actually concerned to take an injectable. So that's another opportunity with our -de-prone. So we believe that's a really strong part in our hands moving forward in the space of the chronic weight management.

Thank you, Patrick. All next question. Next question is from Steve Scala from Cowen. Steve, your line of life.

Oh, thank you so much. There could be several reasons why Lilly is not initiating a phase three trial of terzepatide in NASH. First, Lilly believes it has better molecules. Second, there's something in the phase two data, which is less than ideal. Or third, Lilly will do a phase three. It just hasn't gotten around to finalizing plans. But that really can't be it to draw a parallel. You're starting a phase three with LPA without even telling us the phase two was positive. So what would be best for us to conclude about terzepatide in NASH? Thank you.

Thank you, Steve. Thanks, Steve, for the clever analysis here. So first of all, I should just say we literally just got this phase two data. So give us a chance to determine our next steps on plans. Probably I debunk at least one of the hypotheses here. There's nothing bad in the data that would stop us from going to phase three. In terms of having a better molecule, probably we do in retitrutide. Of course, we don't have that kind of phase two data here for retitrutide. And so that's based on liver fat reduction, which was just incredible in the phase two trial. Still, though, I think having a positive phase two trial here with really meaningful data in NASH obligates us to think about next steps. As I said, that's going to the FDA to talk to them. I would say in terms of planning a phase three for any drug in NASH, the really important priority for us is to move away as much as we can from liver biopsies and replace them with noninvasive testing. I think we and others in the field have made a lot of progress there. We see analogies here to other disease areas, and we hope that in the future it will be possible to conduct phase three NASH trials without relying on biopsies. That would really have a profound effect on the feasibility of running these trials quickly, but also in the clinical application of NASH drugs where those noninvasive biomarkers could be used to identify patients for treatment and monitor their response to therapy rather than biopsies. Thank you, Dan.

Paul, next question. The next question is from Chris Shibutani from Goldman Sachs. Chris, your line is live. Thank

you. Duration of use of the GLT-1s across the diabetes and obesity populations. Previously, you've characterized the duration in the range of 15 months for diabetes and have commented that you don't believe we have enough experience. Any updates there, and when do you think we will have enough experience to be able to get a better gauge of duration of use median in the obesity population, at least initially?

Thanks, Chris. Patrick, do you want to comment on duration of therapy?

Thank you very much, Chris. I think you're right. It's quite challenging. It's still early days with both Mungiaro and particularly ZetBound, and we have been facing some specific dynamics in terms of supply and also changes to the COPE program. However, when we look at the recent data for Mungiaro, it's encouraging, and it suggests that patients that start therapy back in Q1 2023 are having a persistency at least along the lines of other injectable link routines. For ZetBound, definitely too early, but we strongly believe that patients will be motivated when they see the benefits of the drug. And that will of course be many factors impacting both supply, microeconomic and microeconomic. But we are convinced that there will be a finite duration of treatment also for obesity, since when we look into even heart failure and type 2 diabetes, more than a 12-month period of adherence is considered long. But encouraging data in type 2 diabetes so far, and with ZetBound we will see that there will for sure be an end of duration based upon what we have seen in other chronic diseases, but we believe that the features itself will be motivating for patients.

Thanks, Patrick.

Paul, next question. The next question is coming from Akash Tawari from Jeffreys. Akash, your line of life.

Hey, thanks so much. So, David, at JPMorgan, you made an interesting comment on Orphaglifron where you mentioned the molecule has lots to prove here. Can you elaborate a bit on what you mean by this? And what's your confidence on Orpho's DDI profile? It seems to have a bit of CIP3A4 inhibition. So, will this drug be able to get dosed with SGLT2s given they were excluded in some of your earlier studies?

Thanks. Sorry, that was for me? I can frame like why I said that, but maybe David, you can comment on the specific DDI questions in SGLT2 co-administration. I just said that because we're just starting the Phase 3, and we all know small molecule, there's a bit of empiricism in terms of eliminating safety risks. And, of course, every day as we expose more patients to the drug and we have higher doses, that's a good day where we don't announce that the drug has a problem. At some point, we reach a lot of confidence. We just weren't at that point. We're not at it now. I think we're running the Phase 3 experiment and we need to discharge the off-target safety that is inherent in small molecule discovery. And we've seen in this class from others, but nothing specific on my mind. Maybe Dan can further reassure us.

Yeah, thanks, Dave. Of course, that's just the normal Phase 3 types of risk, new safety signals, which could always arise. I think with respect to DDI and co-administration with SGLT2, we expect that to be possible and we have that ongoing in our Phase 3 trials. There are patients who achieve,

who

are being dressed with Orphan Goat Brown as well as other drugs like SGLT2.

Thanks, both. Paul, next question. The next question is from Trinh Huynh from UBS. Trinh, your line is live.

Hi, guys. Thanks for taking my questions. Can I just ask your thoughts on GIP agonism versus antagonism, given data yesterday from a competitor suggesting more limited effects on things like blood pressure and lipid modifications? Just how differentiated do you think an agonism approach is versus antagonism and why you think agonism is the way forward? Thank you.

Yeah, well, first of all, it's an unfair comparison. We have so much data now on the benefits of GIP agonism from tens of thousands of participants in randomized clinical trials for terzepatitis. So we're extremely confident here about the benefits of GIP agonism. Adding to that data, we have experimented with a pure GIP1 agonist that doesn't have any GLP1, and we reported the benefits there in our Phase 1 study. We're contrasting that here to a small Phase 1 study that was recently published with a drug that has both GLP1 agonism and GIP antagonism. I noted in that publication that GIP antagonism is at a much lower affinity, so it probably only starts to agonize antagonize GIP at very high doses. That's probably a question for that company, but I noted that the high doses actually an increase in free fatty acids and complete attenuation of the decrease in triglycerides in the clinical trial. Those are some effects that we attribute to GIP, and so I'm not surprised that antagonism of GIP is starting to have some negative effects. Once that kicks in, we also see GIP agonism is having positive benefits on tolerability, reducing potentially nausea and vomiting. And again, I think maybe at the higher doses, you could probably see some hints of the opposite effect with antagonism. So pretty glad with the decision we took, and let's see how the field continues to evolve.

Thank

you, Dan.

Paul, next question. The next question is from Carter Gould from Barclays. Carter, you're live.

Great. Good morning. Thanks for taking the questions. I guess over the prior two earnings calls, there had been at least an acknowledgement that CMOs were going to be part of the equation going forward for supply on the increment side. I guess does the developments yesterday have any sort of direct or indirect impacts as you think about that part of the equation going forward?

Thanks, Carter. Anant, do you want to field that?

Sure. So we've, and I've mentioned on this call as well, that we have a very expensive many suspension agenda, which does include third parties. While our strategy is and has always been to develop more internally, we do have third parties as well. So we saw the announcement that came out from NOVA yesterday regarding the intent to acquire at CADLINT, and we certainly have questions about that transaction and need to learn more. And we don't know CADLINT is an integral part or manufacturer of both commercial and pipeline products for the industry, especially in diabetes and obesity. And we have products with these sites as well. So our focus today is on ensuring that continuity of supply of medicine for patients is uninterrupted, as well as we intend on holding CADLINT accountable to their contract with us as we look and we gain more information on this proposed transaction.

Thank you. Paul, next question. The next question is coming from James Shin from Deutsche Bank. James, your line is live.

Hi, good morning. Thanks for taking the question. I just want to circle back to Carter's question. Given Lilly is well capitalized and manufacturing capacity being the priority, could you expect more buy versus build to get around some of the technical bottlenecks and the non-trivial FDA process? I just want to get your thoughts there.

Dave? Yeah, maybe I'll give it a shot. Thanks for the question, James. As I mentioned on the earlier question related to a formula prong, we are not we don't think of ourselves as capital constraint buying or building in the space. The reality is there just isn't built capacity that's available. Most of it that's being used is already deployed against the leading products in the GLP-1 space, at least any at scale. And new capacity has a lead time of three to four years. So all of the things that are coming online now, like we mentioned today, are very large site in Concord, North Carolina. That's a big note of capacity for the sector and certainly for Lilly. I mean, that was announced two and a half years ago and it will just begin production at the end of this year. So that's the problem. And why is that? Well, of course, greenfield building is difficult, repurposing is difficult, but also these are technically complex facilities. There's not an infinite number of people who know how to set them up. And the supply chain for the machines that make the products is also constrained. So at this point, I don't think there's an easy way forward. And I think even in yesterday's announcements, we have a lot of questions about that. But I think even the purchaser or our competitor said it will take many years for them to be able to increase capacity within that purchase. So it's just not an easy problem to solve. I think over time it will ease. There'll be more capacity brought online by us or competitor and maybe others, including third parties. And new technology will emerge like for Gopron or other oral options that tap into different asset bases. So I know it's frustrating for investors. It's frustrating for us. It's even more frustrating for patients. But it's just sort of the situation we're in is that we steady gains in manufacturing over the coming several years and perhaps bigger gains after that. Thank you, Dave.

All next question. Next question is from Rajesh Kumar from HSBC. Rajesh, your line is live.

Hi there. Can you give us some color on how the access with employers is playing out? Are you getting exclusive access for your drugs or you're being added to the existing access your competitors' drugs have? And what is the nature of discussion, especially given that the pound is priced at a more attractive list price? I'm assuming with rebate differences might be a bit smaller, but any color there might be super helpful.

Yeah, thanks Rajesh. I think we covered that in Chris Schott's question earlier. I don't know if Patrick has anything to add or if we could just move on.

I think the only addition would be that we are always aiming for open access. We believe that's important for the providers and the patients we are serving. So that's going to be our aim when it comes to employer opt-in as well. And we believe the move by pricing setbound 22% below the competition despite launching with a -in-class profile is also a good signal for increased and enhanced employer opt-in. Thanks. Thank you, Patrick.

Paul, next question. The next question is from Andrew Baum from Citi. Andrew, your line is live.

Thank you. Could you talk to your scenario planning for post-2032 when the potential exists for generic electromagnetized to be launched? There seems to be significant interest in investment in capacity expansion. Now, obviously this is complex as you outlined, given not just API, but fit and finish and IP and the rest of it. But I'm just curious how you think about that in terms of future-pufing your business against step edits and other thinking about your broader Inquitin portfolio.

Thanks, Andrew. Very long-term question. I'll pass over to Anath to talk about 2032 and beyond.

We do look at 2032 and we actually do look beyond. And the way we look at our business, it is a long-term business. It's not a business that changes every year or two. So we do look at the long-term horizon, both in terms of the commercial products as well as what's coming through the pipeline. And as we think through the events of Patnext freeze, whether for our products or those of competitors, our way of managing through that is to bring new breakthrough innovation to the marketplace. So to raise the bar on our own innovation, we don't wait for that to occur or happen by competition, but to bring something into the market that provides a meaningfully improved outcome for patients. So in this specific example, you use the GOPs, surely terzepotide brought in a higher bar for weight loss for patients with chronic weight management. And Ritutrutide, that Dan referenced in his comments currently in Phase III, has the potential to bring even further improved outcome for patients. So that's how we see that. In terms of capacity and whether the question is on whether the companies should be or shouldn't be building, given that there is a patent expiry at the end, we do look at that and we look at the long-term horizon. But certainly the investments in a manufacturing facility, for example, the ones we've just mentioned, whether it's in Concord, North Carolina, or Reister and Triangle Park, between the two of them is about a $4 billion investment, are certainly a good investment of our capital, given that size of opportunity over the long term. I will say that as you think about potential for the generic or bicellular entry in this space in general, it will require quite a massive investment in capital. Just the sites that I've mentioned today on the call and we've talked about for the past year or so, total about $11 billion. And that's on top of already substantial network we have around the globe, primarily in the US and Europe for production. So as you think about entering into that space, it will require some significant capital commitments.

Thank you, Nod. Maybe the final question, Paul, and then we'll wrap up.

Certainly. The next question is from Tim Anderson from Wolf Research. Tim, your line is live.

Oh, thank you so much. So one of the competitive data sets obviously everyone's watching is the Amgen data this year, and their messaging is around longer dosing frequency, monthly dosing, and then possibly a greater effect of weight loss off therapy. So can you comment on your values, on your views of the value of extended dosing like monthly or longer? And then do you believe in that argument about, you know, efficacy being sustained off therapy or is that just a function of the fact that this drug lasts longer?

Dan? Yeah, I'll

start with the second and then maybe Patrick will weigh in on potential value here. But although that could be a good question for Amgen. Look, I think the sustainability data I saw in that publication are a bit underwhelming. You know, it's a very high dose drug at half life of an antibody. So just based on plasma concentrations that would be expected to remain there after a month or two, it doesn't surprise me. But what we're seeing is that doses that are reasonably well tolerated, if there were any doses that are reasonably well tolerated, weight loss is lower than what we would need to see to take a molecule to phase three for sure. And sustainability doesn't appear to be at all differentiated.

My only addition would be that when we look at the market research, of course, convenience is one factor, but it's not necessarily the most important factor when it comes to provider and consumer selecting treatments. So I'm really excited about the cost we have in our hands, of course, to separate remaining a foundation treatment for obesity, but also with the additional retrocrutide and of all the prawn and also the opportunities here to look into options with additional non weight loss dependent pharmacology to to complement the assets we have in the pipeline.

Thank you both. Dave, do you want

to wrap

this up?

Absolutely. That's good, Joe. Thanks. We appreciate everyone participating today. And of course, your interest in the company. 2023 was a really productive year for Lilly, and we look forward to continued momentum in 2024 with a strong guide today. Thanks again for dialing in and please follow up with Joe and the IR team if you have additional questions that weren't answered. Thanks.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. This does conclude our conference for today. This conference will be made available for replay beginning at 1 p.m. today, running through February 20th at midnight. You may you may access the replay system at any time by dialing -332-6854 and entering the access code 187-676. International dialers can call -528-0005. Again, those numbers are -332-6854 and -528-0005 with the access code 187-676. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect your lines.