Seeking Alpha
We cover over 5K calls/quarter
Profile| Send Message|
( followers)  

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:REGN)

Deutsche Bank 2013 BioFEST Conference Call

December 02, 2013 01:05 PM ET

Executives

Leonard Schleifer - Chief Executive Officer

Michael Aberman - VP of Strategy and IR

Analysts

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

[No presentation session for this event]

Question-and-Answer Session

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

All right. Thank you all for joining us this afternoon. Those of you listing to the webcast, my name is Robyn Karnauskas, I’m one of the analysts at Deutsche Bank. I am very excited next to have Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. And with us from Regeneron we have Dr. Leon Schleifer, whom I have known for a very long time, since my [infancy] and Dr. Michael Aberman, VP of Strategy and Investor Relations and have graciously agreed to keep going as long as possible until they've answered all of my questions, so it could actually be a three hour session.

I thought, I have a lot of questions on EYLEA PCSK9 pipeline, but given that there were some compounding documents come out this morning maybe you can start off with that and talk about what’s new with compounding pharmacies and legislations?

Leonard Schleifer

Sure. Before we get started, thanks for having us on. Before we get started, I’ll remind everybody that we’ll be likely making some forward-looking statements which involve risks and so you should refer to our SEC documents including our latest 10-Q our 10-Ks and you can find all that on our website or call the company.

Now so what Robyn is referring to is last Wednesday after giving the Nation of Turkey a Pardon, President Obama also signed in to lower the Drug Tracking and Security Act, basically from our perspective the Compounding Bill. And the compounding legislation, as everybody know was a result of contaminated drug causing scores of deaths I think in hundreds if not thousands of people put at risk and ailments related to contaminated steroids that were compounded actually not too far from viewing the compounding centre.

And that catastrophe in what otherwise the U.S. [Pride] so far is one of the most secure drug suppliers in the world really point to that that there was this sort of crack where it wasn’t clear who was regulating what. And so the compound lots of finger pointing went on and lots of all sorts of arguments that they have the authority, they didn't have the authority and a law was eventually passed which was supposed to determine exactly who is on the (inaudible) who is responsible for what. And that's a big preamble and to saying that what’s got passed was the modification of the [Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act].

And that's the point, that's what I think you have to remember. The Food and Drug Cosmetic Act regulates drugs and it deals with the compounding of the drugs. And the FDA put out after the law was passed last Wednesday in record time, the FDA put out several guidance documents this morning that indicated their view on the law and how they were going to begin to enforce it et cetera et cetera. But what they stuck with is discussing drugs. And from our perspective, biologics are conspicuously absent. They are absent from the law, because they are not regulated by the Food and Drug Cosmetic Act, they are regulated by the Public Health Service Act, so which wasn't changed. So there doesn't seem to be any exemption for the compounding of biologics which is of course something which affects our EYLEA sales because compounded and repackaged Avastin has about 50% of the market for wet AMD and something we're obviously in our major sweet spot.

Regeneron's position throughout this process has been we are in favor of patient choice. We told that to Congress, we told that to the FDA, we told that to the American Ophthalmological Association, we told it to retinal specialists. We are in the favor of patient choice and we've nothing against patients being able to choose Lucentis, choose EYLEA, choose Avastin. We would like them to choose our product, but choice is fine.

But while they should have lots of choices, we felt they should have only one quality standard. You shouldn't have to go out and pick up an injection of Lucentis or Avastin or EYLEA and wonder which one is having a different quality standard. We think that that could be the effect of this law that in terms of biologics there may only be one quality standard which is fully regulated, highly manufactured or repackage of biologics. So we have to wait and see, but that’s sort of our first reading of the law.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

If there isn’t impact from the law, when do you think, how soon could we see an impact?

Leonard Schleifer

Well, I think you could start to see it pretty quickly, but I don’t think you will see it in terms of a, see change overnight. I think if you will changes it will start to as people want to phase out from using compounded products that are not made according to the compounded biologics that are repackaged not according GMPs that I think that is going to -- should be a steady move towards branded product at least that’s what I would expect.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

Okay. Are you seeing any use right now in DME?

Leonard Schleifer

Yeah. We don’t track DME because we don’t have an approved label. The best we can tell there isn’t much use there because it would require payers to pay for an unapproved drug. They already have a cheaper alternative for an unapproved drug Avastin which they get reimbursed for, but I don’t think there is much use there.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

Any possibility for content delisting?

Leonard Schleifer

Yeah, I don’t think that that’s real. There are some docs who have gone out of the way to get it on some of the payers’ lists, but the real prize is getting the FDA to review the file and hopefully get it approved. We are waiting to know whether it will be priority to view or not. In either case if all goes smoothly, we should be able to get the drug approved next year if everything is acceptable to the agency.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

Okay. And with only 40% of people getting VEGF therapy, how do you increase the number of people going on VEGF a little later?

Leonard Schleifer

Right. So obviously what Robyn is referring to the fact that the alternative to treating diabetic macular edema, now we are not talking about AMD, we are talking about diabetic macular edema is to laser these blood vessels that are leaking and try and stop the process that way.

Well, I think that if you listen to what the doctor said at the last meeting, I think you are going to hear a chorus of this over the next year or two which is that one expert got off and said, basically there is almost no role and no reason to use a laser for center involving diabetic macular edema anti-VEGF therapy, he felt was standard. Our drug is not approved for that so obviously we can’t say that, we don’t say that. But I think the field is moving there because of Genentech’s data. Now if our drug is approved, the Phase III trials that we did were head to head against laser. So I think that the evidence will continue to grow, doctors will see that anti-VEGF therapy in general sense, specifically now the only approved drug is Lucentis is the way to treat these patients.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

Okay. If we think about AMD, I mean why should AMD launching a discount, I have asked this question to Michael before and doctors really perceived that very well and you had strong uptick and now that sort of stabilized, in DME you are going to be launching at a price that’s more expensive. So how do you argue that, like how will doctors perceive the more expensive price for DME and how do you say well it’s great that we’re cheaper and it’s great that we’re expensive into the market segments?

Leonard Schleifer

Yeah. So it’s a complicated argument and it’s not monolithic in the sense that it’s going to be one way or the other way. But the arguments go a little bit like this, when we launch the product into AMD, we wanted to make a statement to the world, to the doctors to the patients that even that we thought we had a better product because we had a better label, it didn’t mean we had to charge more. We actually felt we could deliver more for less of the price. And I think that, remember we were new to the retinal community, they didn’t know anything about Regeneron. And I think that that served us very well that we got welcomed with open arms.

But that's not what drove, that's not what drove our drug, there was reputation enhancement there. But what drove the product was in January of 2012 about six or eight weeks after we had launched the product, the doctors were trying the product themselves in patients who hadn’t responded well to Lucentis or Avastin and in individual patients measuring retinal thickness they were reporting what they felt was very significant effects of EYLEA.

I think that’s something we didn’t promote, we can’t promote it and we didn’t need to, doctors sort of figured this out themselves that they like the product attributes. So I think at the end of the day in DME, it would be likely the same thing. Doctors will try the product in patients who are not doing as well and remember the lower dose is why Lucentis is priced more, they remember the data. They went in with a trial of 0.3 and 0.5 milligrams and in two Phase III trials people forget this.

And frankly it’s a little bit annoying to me that Genentech representatives go around the world and Novartis representatives go around the world, and I will tell you a little bit about that in a second, and start trying to make safety arguments from really sketchy arguments in my opinion. But it’s the only drug that has two Phase III trials with a dose dependent increase and the worst side effect of all which is death, is Lucentis. Two Phase III trials dose dependent increase is death, Lucentis. They can hide, they can run, but they, it’s in the label. And that's the bottom-line. And the FDA made them take the lower dose because there was no benefit and there was that dose dependent increase is death.

Now I want to come back to something. It’s frankly annoying what some of the activities of our competitionors doing to be honest and I'll give you an example. Outside of the United States, Novartis, when we launched in Australia they had want to let people send out a note and say look at this, look at this little [excerpt] from the European assessment of our product that says that in this subgroup my new 85 patients at over 1,000 patient studies, 85 patients in this subgroup of 85 [heros] there was increase in risk of strokes. Take a look at this before you prescribe EYLEA, basically is what they said.

And to our partners’ credit there who sell the product for us actually and partnership outside the United States they said enough is enough. They went to the Australian authorities and they said to the Australian authorities take a look at this and normally these are things that settle between the companies, but Bayer said no way no how we want you to rule on this. And the authorities ruled that this was misleading selective and basically inappropriate marketing which really what gives a whole industry a bad name. They should just sell on the basis of their label and sell on the basis of what they got, but they can’t resist. And so they had to send out a corrective email.

So anyway I think that that’s a little bit of annoyance to me so I can’t resist talking about it. But the bottom-line is that when you talk about our product they had this dose dependent increase in death which I am not sure is even real to be frank, I don’t know, but it’s in the label that’s why they have the 0.3 milligram dose. We went in with our standard 2 milligram dose. I hope the drug gets approved. It’s the only dose we studied. We've submitted to file and we're waiting for the FDA to do its thing. And hopefully after working with them, we'll be able to get the drug approved and provide patients with an alternative.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

And going back to the original question about, do doctors care that it’s more expensive for dose?

Leonard Schleifer

Yes. There are some doctors who are price sensitive. Some care because their patients have to have a bigger co-pay and it's harder for them. We of course have patient assistance programs for people who, we never want to see somebody who can't afford our product not get it, so we do what we can there. Other doctors care because simply they want to save the healthcare system money, which is noble and fine as well.

But at the end of the day, I think that's not the primary driver of -- in the progress sense, there are some aspects of this, a rebate, which is another story, which some people claim drive doctors to prescribe Lucentis because they give them a rebate, we don't give them a rebate, so another fact.

Michael Aberman

It is also a reminder I mean we're studying every month and every two months. So to the extent the every two month is approved, while on a per injection basis, we maybe more expensive in the point three, but again Lucentis was studied monthly on an annual basis, which would still be comparable if not less.

Leonard Schleifer

Excellent point.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

So given the DME markets less mature, maybe if people not failing their current drug do you think that the uptake new launch will be as lift as it was in AMD?

Leonard Schleifer

I have told everybody that anybody in your position or in the audience or anywhere is really good at predicting these markets we have a very high paying job for them because we can't get them right, nobody gets them right.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

Well you beat my expectation. So I wanted to know -- you beat my expectations I guess?

Leonard Schleifer

I think by five-fold.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

Yes correct.

Leonard Schleifer

That’s what I recall.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

Yes. Correct.

Leonard Schleifer

I just think we don't -- you don't beat us by five-fold this time, you never know. We obviously are looking forward to a strong and launch it if we get the drug approved. Getting the drug approved is job one right now.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

Okay, last question on this why do people still use Lucentis, is it the rebate issue and do you think you can capture that share Lucentis has in AMD or are you going to start attacking that share?

Leonard Schleifer

Right, so we have by market physician surveys, it’s pretty consistent everybody that has sort of same results that the market is roughly divided about 50% to Avastin, 25% to Lucentis and 25% to EYLEA. We have just passed them in our latest survey, but it's good for these purposes, 25%, 25%, 50%. So, that means that there is three times as much market as we don't have as we do have on a unit basis. Whether we'll get it from Avastin or we get it from Lucentis, we're not particularly picky we would like to get it from both. We also think that that market will grow on its own just from demographic growth. So through my view, EYLEA is far from a matured product.

I mean we're growing in market share, we're growing with demographics, we hope to grow with indications. And we're doing this all over again outside of the United States and our partnerships with Bayer. So it is geographic expansion, it is indication expansion, it is demographic expansion and market share expansion and both and structural potential changes relating to the compounding, so lots of opportunities.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

But can you get Lucentis’ share and will you get the Lucentis’ share?

Leonard Schleifer

Of course.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

Would you rebate?

Leonard Schleifer

Rebate is a very complicated question. We haven't being able to get over the hump that giving doctors a payment to prescribe a certain volume of your product is the right thing to do and it's frustrating. We are trying to get, I do not think we had clarification of all this.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

Okay.

Leonard Schleifer

But we don’t want to disadvantage our product, but there is no question that that has made some of the share sticky. I hear that there are some people that are looking into this, the legality of this. So this argument isn’t done yet. If you remember, there was an article in the New York Times written about that these will kick back. That’s what the New York [Andy Powell] called it in the New York Times, and it’s a very interesting article worth going back to read.

Now I think that this was squashed a little bit in terms of investigation. But I still think from what we hear, our sources tell us, it’s still being looked at. So, we don’t know for sure where this is going, and we don’t know exactly how legitimate it is, and we don’t exactly know what their program is but we know there is a rebate.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

I also [expected] this came out. And for me every other week data, the weekly, subcu ACTEMRA data, is that competitive to take share?

Leonard Schleifer

Yeah. So, Robyn is referring to our drug to treat rheumatoid arthritis which is a partnership with Sanofi which by the way I should point out that we are very lucky; we have two really terrific partners. We have Bayer who is our partner for EYLEA; it’s a product specific partnership outside the United States. And we have Sanofi who is our broad-based partnership in our antibody program, both have been terrific. The Sanofi partnership is going like gangbusters. We’ve got lots in that pipeline, we’ve got alirocumab, which we’re sure you get to for collect to a loading, we’ve got sarilumab, which I’m going to just in second and dupilumab for atopic dermatitis for asthma and for nasal polyposis.

As far as whether or not our drug can be competitive, it’s very interesting history. If you look at the anti-TNF market, what Robyn is referring to is, we just released very recently our Phase III data, where our goal was to come up with an every other week regimen that would win basically on three points. It would win that it would have comparable safety and acceptable safety profile; it would win on having activity on signs and senses of the disease and it would win on having a very important effect on slowing the progression of bone damage in rheumatoid arthritis.

The data from this trial were all excellent and I point it. We saw side-effects that were typical with the IL-6 class that you expect to see, lipid changes and things of that nature, which is quoted at risk -- these compounds by the way are not risk free, none of them the anti-TNF, the anti-IL-6. So we think we’ll see what you expect to see with the class, nothing as exceptional. We saw a very strong -- in the trial, very strong performance in the ACR scores, very high ACR 20s, 50s, 70s and the 90% in this trial reduction in the rate of bone progression. That's one Phase III trial, we've got several more to go, and we’re a long way from getting to the market, but that is a great beginning for a Phase III program.

So, we are very pleased how well it competes. If you look in the anti-TNF area, each time a new -- people say, well, why it’s (inaudible) going to take off, it’s just every other week versus every week a boom. It becomes a $5 billion or $10 billion drug. You just can’t predict these.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

But [symphony] has not done well, convenience has not done well. And so, a lot of it has to do with price and strategy.

Leonard Schleifer

Yeah.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

So, are you very aware of that...

Leonard Schleifer

Yeah.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

Okay.

Leonard Schleifer

You make an excellent point. These are not just layups that you produce them and film out the door; it’s going to take work, it’s going to take hard work. And there is a lot of strategy to think about pricing and positioning et cetera.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

Okay. Turning to PCSK9, I actually really think that people sort of betted the debate around outcomes and the FDA came out and said you will need outcomes initially they have so that. May be you want to give your quick, really quick thoughts on the outcome requirement, but I actually wanted to talk about the success and failure to improve it and how that could influence whether or not the FDA would require outcomes or change their opinion on them?

Leonard Schleifer

We should move to your second question.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

Yeah, I actually like to move to the second.

Leonard Schleifer

Okay I don’t feel [comfortable] to answer the first.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

Okay. Sounds good.

Leonard Schleifer

We can go right to the second question which is improvement which is the study of whether or not ezetimibe can increase the beneficial effect that you see with statins by giving a little incremental lowering the of LDL. And that trial just completed its last interim readout which the results were continue, which means it was not [feudal], it wasn’t blockbuster enough to start.

I think that we are firm believers in the LDL hypothesis, okay? We're fortunate to have Mike Brown and Joe Goldstein on our Board of Directors who won their Nobel Prize for figuring out the whole LDL hypothesis working at the LDL receptor and we have Roy Vagelos, the Chairman who put the first statin to market. So we feel qualified to think about this field quite a bit and we deal with all the experts on a regular basis. So we're strong believers in the LDL hypothesis. And the genetics are in your favor. Remember, if you have no LDL receptors, you’re homozygous, you don’t so well, you’re going to die of heart disease almost for sure at very young age. Even if you have one miss copy of your LDL receptor, you're going to have a very high LDL and it’s just dose dependent. You have not quite as high as homozygous but you have very high LDL, 200 or more and you’re going to die probably more likely but not of heart disease. And so the genetics validates the LDL hypothesis.

Now PCSK9 comes along and it further validates the whole genetic hypothesis because what is PCSK9 doing like, before it was a target for our drugs, it regulates the LDL receptor and very nice elegant work Helen Hobbs and others who are actually disciples of Brown, Goldstein result, they show that PCSK and others in France as well, PCSK9 was important regulator of LDL receptors.

And if you didn't have a completely functioning PCSK9 system, you got more LDL receptors, less LDL of blood stream and a 90% lifetime lower risk of having heart disease. So that was clear genetic validation. Parenthetically, there is no generic validation for CTEP inhibitors or any other form of lowering cholesterol other than lowering it via the LDL receptor. Okay?

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

Do you think the success and failure would not have any impact?

Leonard Schleifer

I think that it's quite possible that if it went against, if it invalidated hypothesis and said Gees, lowering LDL was actually associated with worst outcome. That would really cause the FDA to pause. But I think it's unlikely and I think the genetic evidence for PCSK9 is so overwhelming and it works to the same LDL receptors and statins that bind a total surprise for [IMPROVE IT]. I think the LDL hypothesis is safe.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

Okay, that's helpful. Let me ask you a question about Avalanche Therapeutics’ gene therapy.

Leonard Schleifer

Right.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

You, on the heels of positive data from Ophthotech is now of your own injectables in to EYLEA and PGF EYLEA combination. Is Avalanche Therapeutics looks like it has a good efficacy on how would you -- strategically, what would you do to compete against that or would you do anything?

Leonard Schleifer

I can't let you slip in that premise about Ophthotech so easily without making a little comment about it.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

Okay.

Leonard Schleifer

We are not overwhelmed with the PDGF hypothesis. We think the data is interesting. There are some inconsistencies in the data. If you look at their filings, there is some inconsistencies I think in terms of lesion side effects, things like that. And frankly one study is not enough where the FDA would be approving drugs based on one Phase II study. This is why that you have to do two Phase III studies. Remember, in our Phase III program, the VIEW 1, we had a statistically significant better effect with EYLEA than Lucentis, which didn’t repeat in the second study.

And so, you can see these differences that don’t repeat. So, is it an interesting hypothesis? Yes. Might it repeat? Sure. Is it [a shoe in]? Hardly. But it’s interestingly enough for us that we think that remember, these afterwards did not prove to be the way to block VEGF. Macugen, you may remember was the first way to block VEGF with an [asthma]. Once people worked on that they have got a better drug like Lucentis or EYLEA, Macugen becomes and also ran. This is an asthma blocking PDGF. We have a antibody that blocks the PDGF pathway. And we are interested to see whether or not it does anything in combination to us. If it’s going to work, the effect size that we are talking about, it can’t require two shots is our own opinion that is they have to give their drug by two injections in the eye. It’s just not enough upside for the additional risk of the injections. So that’s why we have combined our product and that we hope to be filing INDs soon to be able to inject a single injection which will give both PDGF pathway block and antibody as well as EYLEA in a single shot. So we have a -- we’re interested and we have a ways to go on.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

So, even though, you don’t know whether or not it works or not, you quickly move that forward to be competitive.

Leonard Schleifer

Yeah.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

So if Avalanche has data, what will you do?

Leonard Schleifer

Yeah, I was going to get to that. I wanted to avoid that. I mean I think gene therapy is an interesting field for us. We should suffice to say that we know proteins are our business, genes are our business and so we have a lot of knowledge in that field. Let's put it that way.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

Okay. Let me ask -- I want to ask about on IL-4, but let me ask big picture question. When do you think your revenue from the antibody business could eclipse the revenue from EYLEA?

Leonard Schleifer

Michael, do you know that thing.

Michael Aberman

Yeah, I think we have had...

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

I am sure you have got the model. I am sure you have got the model, are we [tenure] a little bit?

Leonard Schleifer

I have no idea, because I don’t know what the uptake is going to be, I don’t know how fast EYLEA is going to be….

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

But you’ve looked at different models?

Leonard Schleifer

Yes, there are scenarios where it happens sooner or later?

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

So is the worst case scenario?

Leonard Schleifer

Later, because that takes us sooner. We can’t predict these things.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

Okay.

Leonard Schleifer

Because we are not very good at it.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

Okay. When do you plan to open up, as Michael has referred to it, the (inaudible) as far as understanding the other parts of the Regeneron business like the bispecific, when we learn about that?

Leonard Schleifer

Right. Okay, I will tell you little bit about one bispecific right now, which is the one I am interested in which is our CD20, CD3, which we hope to get in the clinic, I think next year. I would say. And I believe that bispecifics have to be used properly. So for example, let me give you an example, somebody is developing a bispecific to block VEGF and ANG2 as a way to treat eye diseases. Now that doesn’t make a lot of sense to us, because you are not trying to accomplish anything other than to block two targets, (inaudible) put two antibodies together to block those targets and put them into right stoichiometry. Bispecific is a double-headed (inaudible) and fix stoichiometry. So it’s one molecule, it binds two different things, but it’s got one head for each of them, right.

And what if you need four times as much VEGF blockade or twice as much ANG blockade, you are stuck those don’t work. But there are times, where bispecifics make good sense. The time when a bispecific makes best sense, which is to trying to bring two things together that otherwise wouldn’t come together except by doing this.

So let’s talk about CD20. We know that CD20 , to the subject of about $5 billion drug or more, I don’t know how big rituxan is, but it’s very big, and son of rituxan and cousin of rituxan, this is a very big market. They rely on finding of an antibody and maybe it’s like (inaudible) antibody to have more or less activity in its FC region, but binds in CD20.

Well, what George and the team solved the problem is, is that they could make a molecule. And that's easy to say, but not so easy to do that you could make a molecule that you could actually manufacture that could be -- that would behave, they would be soluble, that could be produced in large quantities, that would fold the right way, do and have more of the biological properties you needed, lots of tricks went into that and lots proprietary assets. They could make this molecule where they now could bind CD20 on one hand and CD3 on the other hand.

And what is CD3, what does that do, the CD20 grabs on to the target cell, let’s say a lymphocyte that you want to kill a cancer cells expressing CD20, and it brings in a killing cell, CD3. And in pre-clinical datas in monkeys, it works spectacularly well, at incredibly low doses, much lower than you could kill with just CD20 antibodies rituxan alone, you can now get this dramatic killing and you get it in this prolonged and you get it without killing -- no more killing of the non-specific type on t-cells, it’s just transient dip in t-cells. And so it really looks interesting as a way to attack CD20 based target cells and use -- this is what you’ve read about, this is sort of immune-oncology. And it’s best and that they’re using the body’s own immune system to attack a tumor cell. And so this CD20, CD3 bispecific is one that we're interested in and hope to get in the clinic next year.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

Last, give one more minute. What is the one thing that you think -- every year we talk about something new and this year was IL-4 right and what are we going to talking about in 2014 that we are not talking right now?

Leonard Schleifer

Well, I don’t think we've succeeded yet in convincing, we just have interesting IL-4, might be. I think we're going to talk more IL-4 because we're going to get some really good Phase 2b data. I don’t know that we have said before today but sometime in the next year I would hope that we’ll get some Phase 2b data in atopic dermatitis. That’s a pretty exciting program. And I still think we have a lot more conversation to have on that one because I am not sure everybody is getting that.

We're looking at an epidemic of allergic diseases. We have shown, one paper published in New England Journal, the asthma and the other presented around the world at various dermatology meeting the atopic dermatitis, hopefully will publish that soon that you have two diseases one effecting the airways, the other effecting the skin, seemingly unrelated, but one drug dupilumab which can have very impressive effects in our early-stage clinical trials in both suggesting that we're getting to a real interesting pinch point in these allergic diseases. Allergic diseases are becoming epidemical proportion.

When I was a kid in school, many moons ago, I didn't know anybody who is allergic to peanut butter. Now you can't get on to peanuts. Now you can't get on a flight that having any risk even new (inaudible) and somebody is allergic and it's really terrible. And actually we can joke that, but it's serious. And it seems to be growing more asthma, more atopic dermatitis, more allergies. And so the ability that would potentially address that in important way, we're very excited about, so more conversation on this.

Robyn Karnauskas - Deutsche Bank

Okay, great. Thank you very much.

Michael Aberman

You're welcome.

Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited.

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY'S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS.

If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com. Thank you!

Source: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals' CEO Presents at Deutsche Bank 2013 BioFEST Conference (Transcript)
This Transcript
All Transcripts