AbbVie, Inc. (ABBV) Management Presents at Evercore ISI HEALTHCONx Healthcare Conference (Transcript)

|
About: AbbVie Inc. (ABBV)
by: SA Transcripts

AbbVie, Inc. (NYSE:ABBV) Evercore ISI HEALTHCONx Healthcare Conference November 27, 2018 8:00 AM ET

Executives

Bill Chase - Chief Financial Officer

Rob Michael - Chief Financial Officer

Scott Brun - VP of Scientific Affairs and Head of AbbVie Ventures

Analysts

Josh Schimmer - Evercore ISI

Josh Schimmer

Welcome everyone. I'm Josh Schimmer, from the Evercore ISI Biotech team. Pleased to welcome, on behalf of AbbVie. We have Bill Chase, Chief Financial Officer; Rob Michael, new Chief Financial Officer; and Scott Brun, VP of Scientific Affairs and Head of AbbVie Ventures. Thanks again. So thanks so much for joining us.

So maybe we'll start with you because I think that's the most common question I get about AbbVie is on the recent earnings call talking about double digit earnings growth next year. How can you accomplish that considering some of the headwinds that we're facing? What are the different weavers and growth strategies that are going to get us from this and turn back?

Bill Chase

Sure. Well, Josh thanks for having us here. We enjoy part taking in your conference. I guess as you’re too. So yes, I guess, the story there begins with just the performance of AbbVie over the last few years. And if you look at this year in particular, AbbVie has had an outstanding year. Our last quarter, we were grown EPS by 50%, greater than 50%, top line growth 18.5%. And again, that's with the business is growing organically and have a business of this scale with that sort of organic growth is pretty impressive. And we're quite pleased with it.

As we look into next year, look, as a management team, our number one priority is to deliver top-tier growth. That's what we said when we spun out, and we continue to say that. And we are fortunate to have the assets and the businesses in place to allow us to meet that objective even with the headwinds of biosimilars. This is the first time as a company what we've looked at a large generic event. Its five to six years ago. But if you recall when we first came out of Abbott, we had a much lower sales base of $18 million to $20 million. And we were having to navigate our way through $2.5 billion generic event around our lipid portfolio. And we were able to do that and deliver growth.

So now, obviously the business is much bigger with the parts that we've added and the products that we've launched. And it's growing much quicker than it was when we came out of out of Abbott. And while we are seeing a biosimilar event around HUMIRA, it's really isolated outside of the U.S., which is the smaller part of the business. I think when one look and try to figure out how do we deliver the double digit? And we feel very comfortable about the double digit when we look at our plan at this point. It's truly a combination of all the things we've mentioned. So we do -- we will obviously have top line growth that could be driven by continued strong performance in the U.S. with HUMIRA. We've got hem/onc portfolio continued strong growth with IMBRUVICA. And that that’s a product that just continues to show its quality in the market as well as its ability to deliver growth.

VENCLEXTA, with the expansion into the broad relapsed/refractory CLL market as well as the approval of AML, that's going to be a big growth driver. That hem/onc portfolio now is annualizing at over $4 billion. And that grew in the last quarter 48%. So there is a lot of growth there. Then obviously we've got ORILISSA. That came in late this year, but we are anticipating some growth there. And then the thing that we're most excited about the launch of our new immuno assets, which we will see come online in the first half as well as [indiscernible] coming online in the second half. And all of those will contribute the top line growth.

We do expect to see some margin expansion. Although as we look at our path towards our 50% operating margin goal in 2020, we should see more in 2020, given the ability for the pipeline products to really kick in and provide more top line and sales leverage. But there is meaningful things happening next year. The reduction of the HUMIRA royalty, which will add about 1.8 points to our over operating margin profile, will be helpful. And then there is a share count story as well. Obviously, in June, we were in the market in a significant way doing Dutch tender, buying back shares. We continue, as we always have, to feel that this is undervalued stock, even more so with some of the movement that we've seen this year. And that will be part of the story as well.

Question-and-Answer Session

Q - Josh Schimmer

So the share repurchase is continuing into next year?

Bill Chase

Well, I don't think one should expect to see at the level that they did this year. The share repurchase activity you saw this year was a function of two different things. First of all very, very attractive entry point, given some of the dynamics we saw in the market, as well as with the advent of tax reform. We had made it very clear that we were going to look to return incrementally more capital in 2018 than we've seen in 2017. And that played out, obviously, with the higher dividend, as well as an increased share repurchase. I would not anticipate the same level next year.

Josh Schimmer

Excellent, Rob. Maybe if you can lay it on this as well, I guess, the company has spent on decent amount of debt to pay down, interest rates are going up, so the costs are rolling over to that maybe that higher share repurchase and paying at the dividend has been primary source of capital allocation, so far last year or two years. Going forward, how do you think about the capital allocation strategy when you got these moving parts in play? And also you may ultimately also want to create a little bit of balance sheet flexibility for acquisition spend however?

Bill Chase

So let me talk the overall priority. And then Rob can certainly talk about the trends of the balance sheet. First of all, I think, when you look at AbbVie, you have to first look at the amount of the cash flow generation that this business is creating. And that's a cash flow generation is strong significantly over the last few years. And we certainly anticipating to grow significantly over the next few years as well. So there is a lot of cash generated in the business. We will always, first and foremost, look to invest in the business, right. And that investment manifest itself through internal spending and P&L. If you look at our R&D and SG&A, R&D, we've doubled since we spun out SG&A is up considerably as well, as well as M&A activity to build out the business. So certainly, we haven't been shy on that front. You've seen us do pharma cyclists, which, I think well sizable. It created a best-in-class theme on portfolio, and really has given us an important new part of the overall growth story, particularly married up with VENCLEXTA. So we are -- we're willing and able to do those sorts of things as the opportunities arise. Dividend has always been very, very important. And that is a growing dividend, not just dividend. And we have certainly given top tier dividend growth, but most notably, we really increase that following tax reform, where earlier this year we increased dividend by, I think about a $1 a year or so. That was sizable.

And then, buyback, I think, if you look at it historically, it's always been part of the story maybe more on an opportunistic basis. I think the way we think about it is in years where you see even more M&A, you're going to see less buyback in years where there's not a whole lot on M&A radar screen. We will look to return incremental cash back to shareholders. All of that is caveat and with the comfort that we have with our overall balance sheet and debt.

And if you look at our overall cost of funding, I mean, I think, our weighted average costs are 3.5% [ph]. So it's pretty cheap funding right now. I think that we would need to necessarily take down absolute levels of debt. We’re completely comfortable with operating with our overall balance sheet as it is. And when we look at M&A, we don't see that that level of leverage would in any way restrict our ability to go after the sorts of targets for instance [indiscernible].

Rob Michael

Yes, we also expect to see an effective deleveraging with the EBITDA growth as well, certainly where we you look at our balance sheet.

Josh Schimmer

And also in the beneficiaries of that, very low tax rate relative to some of your peers. What is the secret to that and how sustainable it is?

Bill Chase

Sure. You're right. We do have a lower tax rate. I think part of that is a result of the structure that Abbott had when we are -- one combined company and much of Abbott's overall tax management was -- and tax planning landed on the set of businesses that we spun out working. So we have a very, very efficient tax rate. It's a real benefit of the business when we look at it relative to the peers. What we articulated back in January, when we came up with the tax rate, we have had both tax reform, what we call people as, look, one should think of in 2018 and 2019, our tax rate largely being reflective of global minimums with the addition of certain tax credits that we have at a pretty much normal course. But overtime, as when get out of 2019 into '20, '21, '22, you ought to see that tax rate rise a little bit. Now that rise is that because our tax planning has gone awry. It's really being driven more by the geographic mix of our business and those products that are growing faster. So for example, IMBRUVICA is a very, very important product, and it’s a very rapidly growing product. And as I said earlier, the hem/onc portfolio, if you look in totality and IMBRUVICA is a big part of it, is now annualizing at over $4 billion per year. Well that carries with it the U.S. tax rate. And as that becomes a more important part of the story, you will see incremental pressure, upwards with our tax rate. Now that doesn't mean that all of our products are that way. We still have significant amount of the products and pipeline that are in tax advantage locations as well. And those will look to carry more of the global minimum. But I think when we came out in January, the guidance we gave was -- we could expect the tax rate to creep up to around 12%, 13%. We haven't updated it since then. What I can tell you is certainly, as a as a team, we're always looking to minimize tax and make sure that we've got most efficient taxable rate. But I think that directionally that's still pretty good guidance.

Josh Schimmer

One of the other common questions I get is when you talked about margin expansion, about two of the key growth drivers that you've talked about IMBRUVICA and VENCLEXTA have emerging suppressing, sorry, can we fix the mic here - margins suppressing effects just based on the JVs. So how do you think about the pushes and pulls of the margin and where you were able to compare a little bit beyond that HUMIRA royalty?

Bill Chase

Yes, it's interesting because, obviously, both those products are profits. However, we never really talked about long term what's profitably VENCLEXTA looks like well, but we have actually made some comments around IMBRUVICA. Now I think -- and I think it's safe to model and think that VENCLEXTA should look very much like IMBRUVICA as well overtime. The reality is that those are lower margin businesses. So when they get to scale, they are actually accretive to our overall operating margin. IMBRUVICA is pretty much at the point now where we're at that scale. And so IMBRUVICA going forward should largely be helping the story, VENCLEXTA is not yet since we're annualizing the VENCLEXTA right now at about $400 million, but that should change very quickly with the AMO indication coming online and our expansion in the broad relapse refractory CLL.

Josh Schimmer

Can you elaborate a little bit at that reflection point where it does become accretive and how do economics work?

Bill Chase

Well. So it's not that the economics change, it's just how the overall P&L looks relative to the rest of AbbVie right? So if you think about the economics are pretty simple. Think of both of them as mostly being a straight 50-50 split right, where -- if you look at the U.S. business for example, 50% of the profits that we earn in the U.S., we will book as a payment to our partner. That payment comes through COGS. It creates a suppressed gross margin line. However, there are cost share below those. So for example, J&J has their own SG&A. We split R&D. So the rest of that P&L is probably a little skinnier than one would expect, right? As the sales ramp up and get to a notable scale, at some point, you're not growing the middle lines anywhere near as much as you go in the top line. And that lifts the overall operating margin profile. The point that it becomes accretive is one that operating margin profile for the business, in particular, it's -- once that just accretive to the overall AbbVie, which currently is running about 45% -- 47% in the last quarter. So now it's then the accretion story, right. But people don't think of it that way because they like "wow, we're giving away half the profit". But in fact at some point, they will become accretive. Okay?

Josh Schimmer

Okay. Got it. Let's jump to the other book ends, and Scott, let's talk about -- maybe some of the early pipeline activities? You built out a terrific late-stage, but it's almost commercial now, so we don't talk about that as well.

Bill Chase

No. No, you don't get credit for that.

Scott Brun

[Indiscernible]

Josh Schimmer

How are you thinking about navigating? I mean is -- R&D is becoming -- it seems like a different business with lots of everything, harder to navigate refines at differentiated assets et cetera or even target indications? We've been going through the ASH abstracts, and lost track of the BCMA [indiscernible] therapeutics. So how do you navigate through all of those? So what's your strategy? And as you look at the pipeline, which I think, investors generally don't spend much time thinking about where is the opportunity?

Scott Brun

Not, exactly. Well, again, Josh, thanks for hosting us today. So there is a couple of ways to think about it. First of all, amidst all of the various opportunities that are out there, we do want to make sure that we don't lose our core focus, right? So when it comes down to it, we want to make sure that we absolutely are maintaining opportunities for leadership in oncology auto-immune disease and certainly build an emerging position in neurodegenerative disease. And we've worked very hard over the past six years to build the capabilities that we need, not only in R&D, regulatory and market access in commercial to allow us to do that. But you're absolutely right. I mean compared to 20 years ago where we had simple monoclonal antibodies and small molecules, there is now such a range of modalities. We have cells; we have viruses that can manage disease, gene therapies that are emerging. And so certainly while our own labs remain quite prolific, we're spending more time engaging externally. The science is just moving so quickly that it's just not pragmatic to think that you're going to be able to suddenly build up a team to chase every new finding. And so while even traditionally more than half of our pipeline has been sourced through innovation that we find externally, we're becoming all the more proactive in how we approach this. There are a variety of modalities certainly our venture activities, option deals, the kind of partnerships that we have with other large pharma such as risankizumab with Boehringer Ingelheim or even VENCLEXTA with Genentech where we really try to be very selective to say, how do we find not only science, but teams that can complement those capabilities that I mentioned before that we've built up internally. Couple examples over the past 18 months of our venture activities through building relationships with emerging startups have helped to augment our pipeline. Alector, which is a startup on the West Coast, began gain the venture-based investment, but then resulted in a partnership on two neuro-inflammatory targets, one of which, TREM2 just entered Phase 1. So that these are certainly opportunities that are -- well, maybe preclinical or certainly not several years back before getting clinical stage. More recently, a company, Morphic, that's located here, venture investment for an integrin platform, where we just did a deal not too long ago to access their opportunities in fibrosis, which again allows us to begin to expand into adjacencies beyond our core immunology indications. But we've done a lot of deals with new modalities that haven't gone got a lot of attention because our late stage pipeline is so robust: our deal with Turnstone looking at oncolytic viruses for treatment on oncology; Voyager using gene therapy in the central nervous system to produce antibodies against avoiding issues of blood brain barrier penetration, as you can see with standard antibodies. And so again, that’s something we spend a lot of time outlining. But we are absolutely moving into some of these novel modalities.

Josh Schimmer

I guess the way you talk about it tells a little bit like dabbling, getting your feet wet because there is so much to choose from that. Is that kind of the way you're approaching it, like let's get a little bit of gene therapy experience and see where this goes, and if we need to make a bigger room, we'll make a bigger room?

Scott Brun

It's actually really focus on those core areas I talked about. So in gene therapy, we're not saying, hey, let's run out and see what's going on in ophthalmology or in single gene metabolic diseases. For example, in neurodegeneration, we feel that the TAL pathway is quite important for the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease. We have the C2N antibody that hits extracellular TAL to prevent it from moving from neuron to neuron that's in Phase II, in Alzheimer's disease. But then we selectively have done some venture investments that look at other points in the pathway. And Voyager, again wasn't just dabbling in gene therapy, but saying, hey, specifically, with another modality that can help us to really blanket that TAL space. So all the things that we do are really constructed along that, along those specific themes that we played out for success in our core R&D and commercial franchises. And again, to reemphasize the point when it comes to the venture same thing, we're investing things that directly complement where we already have expertise. We're not trying to explore white space area. Now, that's being said, we're constantly monitoring these other areas. And if we think it make sense with regard to what we ultimately want to deliver is a corporation and what our current pipeline is able to achieve within those areas of focus. If we need to expand in, let's say, a fourth area, we know what the opportunities are that would allow us to do so.

Josh Schimmer

And what would you look far enough for an indication?

Scott Brun

Yes, certainly, I think we want to find something that continues to fit with our focus as a specialty biopharmaceutical company, don't expect us to be moving in the things that are going to be primary care base. I think that would work off of our existing strengths as it comes to our experience in market access with particular population. And again, modalities where we think are therapeutic areas, is opportunity to really be differentiated. I mean, if you look at our late-stage pipeline, I think, you can see the kind of things that we've brought out are on the barge of bringing out the things that we really feel can make difference for the diseases out there. So don't feel moving into biosimilars or generics to put at one extreme, I don't see, is moving into cardiovascular medicine for large population.

Josh Schimmer

I think we're generally comfortable with the growth outlook to 2023, maybe a little bit in the 2024, depending on how contracting cycles will work with HUMIRA. But, I think we're all struggling to figure out that 2024 or 2025 window and beyond, and then ultimately, depending on what happens with IMBRUVICA. What are you collectively looking at to fill that gap? Which are the aspects? Scott, it sounds like some of things you're talking about is still early might not be ready for that window. So where should we focus to think about that?

Bill Chase

So let me give you a big picture answer in terms of kind of a mathematical way I'm looking at it. And I think, Scott should jump in and talk about our pipeline and the big calls that we have in the pipeline that could break favorably and some substantially change of story even better than what I'll layout. But at the end of the day, from a macro-macro standpoint, if you look at the challenge that we face given the advent of biosimilars around HUMIRA in the U.S. in the 2023 timeframe, it is one that we've known it exists in all along. And it's how are you going to fill the decline of HUMIRA and continue to drive growth, right. And what we've been in the process of doing is assembling what we think is a best-in-industry pipeline to afford that level of growth. So if we just go with the data that we have shared with the market in prior strategic updates et cetera, we said that HUMIRA is going to max out approaching $21 billion worldwide, right. So that gives you some magnitude of the problem, if you will, it's not a problem, so incredibly great things we've been able to grow the brand. But that's what we're ultimately get it to solve for. When HUMIRA goes off-patent, it will go up at two different timeframe. We've already seen a lot of exclusivity outside of the U.S., a month ago, that represents a total book of business around $6.3 billion this year. And that, obviously, the larger piece will go off-patent and -- or lose exclusivity in 2023. So first of all that event will be played out over two different periods of time, which makes that growth story a little bit easier. You're not losing the whole thing at one point in time.

Then if you look at our late-stage pipeline, again, these are products that are either on the market or soon to be on the market. So we view them as significantly derisk at this point. We know what the efficacy profile looks like, we know what the safety looks like. If you go by therapeutic area, hem/onc, we've got, as I said before, our business right now with two products on the market that is annualizing at $4 billion. And we think that that set of businesses can ultimately grow to somewhere, let’s call it $12 billion to $14 billion, okay, which means we've got another $8 billion to $10 billion of growth right there. And we can talk about the assumptions behind that, but let's just keep this macro at this point.

So we've got ORILISSA that was launched this year that we feel is certainly a multibillion dollar product, $2 billion to $3 billion, maybe more than $3 billion, if you look at the total set of indications that we expect to bring on line. So that takes your $8 billion to $10 billion and raise that to $13 billion to -- I'm sorry, $11 billion to $13billion. And then you've got our new immuno products that we put in Risa that we think conservatively -- and you don't need herculean market share to get there, can provide another $11 billion of growth.

If you add all of those up, you clearly can fill all of HUMIRA and then some. So at the highest level, when we look at those five products, we feel comfortable that we can remain a growth vehicle even through that is that's playing out over two different periods. Now again, we've got other assets in our pipe, say, pipeline, that hasn't put anything in for Rova-T yet. We have to see how that plays out. But with that set of assets alone we ought to be able to maneuver a loss exclusivity of that in HUMIRA. Then it comes down to, well, what do you have in your Phase Ib, Phase II area? And we've got some very interesting programs there. So we ought to again read out in the 2020, 2021 times period.

Scott Brun

It's Scott. Maybe just to build a little bit more on what Bill said, I mean, we remember about the late stage pipeline assets like upa and risa, we’re kind of at the point in the early 2000s when HUMIRA first launched with rheumatoid arthritis, right? I mean upa, we have presented Phase II data in Crohn's disease recently, and ulcerative colitis and A-topic dermatitis, that really speaks to the potential of this therapy in those conditions as well, and if you look at 2025, that's going to be the period when these other indications are going to be ramping up. I even mentioned things like giant cell arteritis will be starting Phase III in next year. It's the same with IMBRUVICA and VENCLEXTA. I mean even within an indication, I mean, however everyone starting to get a sense of just the richness of CLL, where you can start in a very defined population like the 17p relapsed/refractory go to the broader relapsed/refractory, go to first-line unfit, go to first-line fit and there's always growth. It's going to be the same with AML. I mean we're already beginning to explore other opportunities for VENCLEXTA beyond the opportunities in first line, which is a significant one. But again, it's just in patients who are unable to tolerate consolidation chemotherapy. So there's that richness not only in new indications, but even within an indication continuing to figure out how can you fully leverage the potential of these opportunities. And then certainly, as we move on to our earlier stage pipeline, let's start with immunology. We've got some -- a number of interesting assets there. We have a BTK/JAK inhibitor combination that the rational as you're addressing both B-cell and T-cell biology that appears to play a role in a variety of inflammatory conditions starting out with rheumatoid arthritis where we're in Phase II with this combination. I should note that that BTK is not IMBRUVICA. It's a new proprietary agent, again, another irreversible inhibitor of BTK.

Josh Schimmer

And just to clarify, that will be the point where autoimmune indication for IMBRUVICA will not?

Scott Brun

Correct. It gives us, obviously, additional flexibility where dosing and dose response in these inflammatory conditions may be very different than what we see in hematologic malignancies, so that's one. And again, while we're starting in RA, we feel there is potential in a range of conditions such as lupus and others. We have a CD40 antagonist that actually is a result of collaborations on CD40 biology with our oncology group, where we have some -- we think potentially differentiated CD40 agonist. But CD40 antagonist has moved through Phase I, and is now in Phase II for inflammatory bowel disease and it will be reading out in the timeframe that Bill laid out.

And then another very novel approach where we're actually applying an antibody drug conjugate to autoimmune disease. Specifically, we have an antibody that binds to a membrane-bound TNF that presents at sites of inflammation. And conjugated to that is a very potent steroid. We all know steroid is a very effective in these types of conditions, unfortunately the sequel of long-term systemic use becomes significantly limits their utility. But this ADC will deliver the steroid to the site of inflammation. And we've already gone through some Phase I dose ranging that looks very promising. We're able to go very high doses without demonstrating activation, systemic, glucocorticoids pathways. And so we're going to be moving that asset into the Phase II in RA next year.

With regards to oncology, again, you haven't heard a whole lot from us with regard to our oncology pipeline. But we do have a number of projects that are currently, again early stage development, as we said, some potentially differentiated CD40 agonist, a CD40 bispecific to see whether or not conditional activation within the tumor may improve the therapeutic index. Our collaboration with the CytomX, we have a CD71 probody, that's currently in Phase I. We see it's a very promising preclinical data that shows that this probody approach, which only allows the antibody to be activated within the tumor, avoids systemic toxicity that you see with the naked CD71 antibody, specifically very profound anemia. We've got an anti- GARP antibody that's moving forward. GARP is the enzyme that converts TJF data to its active form, which is an immunosuppressant factor within the tumor microenvironment. As I said before, our oncology virus program with Turnstone using the novel Maraba virus engineered to express other antigens is in Phase I right now. We certainly have other antibody drug conjugates, both from the Stemcentrx as well as the Lake County group. And we continue to refine our understanding of antibody drug conjugates and are beginning to move towards next-generation warheads to go beyond oral statins and the PD -- PPDs, to really find some compounds that have their own intrinsic therapeutic index. In other words just aren't so exquisite toxins that you can't give them by themselves, but use the ADC to further enhance their therapeutic index. Our own BCL-XL program, an example of one of those novel targets -- novel warheads rather.

Josh Schimmer

So I think you also have your own BCL inhibitor behind venetoclax. How do we think about your position there?

Scott Brun

Yes, we haven't put a whole lot about that. Think of that as a way of improving bio availability and overall pill count for venetoclax?

Josh Schimmer?

And that's a wholly owned product.

Scott Brun

That is still part of the partnership.

Josh Schimmer?

Can you talk a little bit about Stemcentrx, Daiichi looks like they've really advanced their ADC chemistry to a point where they're delivering strong efficacy and tolerability? And that's from, where I've been sitting could I always thought it could bring kind of differentiation Stemcentrx portfolio of antigens or bio specifics or whatever and really solve for that kind of bioengineering you actually could extract a tremendous amount of value of Stemcentrx, I think, most investors have started to kind of turn away from that portfolio. But maybe you can elaborate on where that process is and what your confidence is that you can harness these novel targets and deliver a whole new pipeline of opportunities?

Scott Brun

Josh, I think, you bring up a great point. I mean when we have initially moved forward with Stemcentrx, the initial ADCs used some of these traditional PPD-based warheads, which, as I said, the more we learn we can -- we certainly say that we can do better. Now that's not the thing there are certain circumstances that those warheads won't be appropriate. But Stemcentrx, one of the greatest values from that collaboration is the patient- derived xenograft armamentarium they have that allows us to generate a variety of novel targets. That -- the targets are going to be independent from the linker and the warheads that you can use in ADC. And so as we generate these targets, what we're now looking to do with the next wave of efforts moving into the clinic is exactly as you said, use some advanced linkers and some of these newer warheads to improve the therapeutic index. Daiichi is one approach, I mean, for example their HER2 topoisomerase ADC looks very promising. We'd like to even go beyond topoisomerase-based warheads. Like I said, I gave one example of BCL-XL. We’ve got some others that we haven't disclosed that we're looking at. Its complex because within ADC, you got the antibody target, you got the linker, you got the toxin, you got the malignancy and then you've got the line of therapy, certainly as we've seen things like small cell lung cancer. And the more experiments we do with the early stem pipeline, the more we're learning about those interactions and how we can optimize for the next stage.

Josh Schimmer?

Are these assets that can drive that incremental kind of post-HUMIRA U.S. biosimilar entry growth?

Scott Brun

Yes. Look, I think there one element ---

Bill Chase

I think we covered neurology as well?

Josh Schimmer?

I have not.

Scott Brun

Thank you, thank you. But maybe just, Josh, to answer your question, there is one element of all the things that I've already mentioned.

Josh Schimmer?

Maybe look forward to getting into neurology you don't have done with. And I want to jump back together both. Every single day we open up the news, and if the new proposals, reimbursement that's going to change the landscape and change the world, and I care like how do you navigate through that and what kind of assumptions are you able to make when each proposal could swing in the future 10%, 20%, and you're still trying to stay on target?

Bill Chase

Well. I don't know how many proposals necessarily that have actually come out would swing the future 10% to 20%. So I mean, while the overall environment feels volatile, in fact, the pace that's change is usually more measured than it certainly feels at times. And but, look, it begins with having a very, very, very good sets of what the administration is potentially thinking about. We have to -- obviously, we have good competencies with our government affairs groups. And then understand how that can apply to our business, and make sure that we have the right source of assets that that will enable us to manage through those difficult environment. You have -- earlier, you asked Scott if there was another silo will be the attributes in that silo. Scott answered exactly right, which is, look, at the end of the day, we want to be in a business that are focused on those segments that have high unmet-need where we can bring true innovation and differentiation. And those -- that is the cornerstone of the strategy at AbbVie. And to the extent that we are successful there and can bring forth those sorts of products, and we certainly think that we've had a track record in that with VENCLEXTA, IMBRUVICA, upa, risa, ORILISSA, MAVYRET, we think that those products give you the best way to manage through what can be a fairly chaotic environment overtime. But it kind of goes back to that core strength.

Josh Schimmer?

Any questions from the audience? That's not. I'll keep going. So I guess, we're going to exit 2019 next year. You're going to have ORILISSA, upadacitinib and risankizumab launching. At that point, how are you thinking about which will beyond the strongest trajectory? Which is going to have the easiest path for adoption?

Richard Gonzalez

So we like all of our babies. I'm not going to let you pick -- make me so excited. But however -- no, kidding. Look, all of those products are not going to be identical products, right. I mean there are some products that clearly have greater opportunities than others since they're all very, very good products. I think if you look at trajectory, I don’t want to get specific 2019 guidance, but if you look at the overall scale of those products, I said earlier, the new immune assets have the ability right not to max out by last time we really talked about all putting around $11 billion, $12 billion, that's across a number indications. The market share assumptions are high-single digits to get to those numbers. Now, that said, as it pretends to next year, risa comes online in first half, upa comes online second half. That's going to impact how much of an impact you can see in '19. But we’d expect those products to grow very, very rapidly with a couple of different things, the size of the market, the quality of the data, as well as most importantly access that we're very conscious that we are going to have good access around those products at launch. ORILISSA very, very attractive products overall that’s had $2 billion to $3 billion. I don't think is a stretch given fibroids endometriosis. That has always been a market so that we said we have to build the market where there hasn't been a lot of innovation recently. It is the innovation that that market has seen over the last few decades. So that's going to be a little bit more of a get out educate the market, prime the market, DTC, activate patients. So that will be slower.

Josh Schimmer

Okay. I think, we’re at the end of the time. Thanks everyone for joining.

Scott Brun

Thanks Josh.