INCY - NASDAQ

Greetings and welcome to the Incyte Fourth Quarter and Year End 2025 Financial Results Conference Call and Webcast. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A question and answer session will follow the formal presentation. You may be placed in the question queue at any time by pressing star one on your telephone keypad. We ask you to please limit yourselves to one question, then return to the queue. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. If anyone should require operator assistance, please press star 0. It's now my pleasure to turn the call over to your host, Alexis Smith, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Thank you.

Good morning, and welcome to Incyte's Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 Earnings Conference Call. Before we begin, I encourage everyone to go to the Investors section of our website to find the press release, related financial tables, and slides that follow today's discussion. On today's call, I'm joined by William Meury, Pablo Cagnoni, and Thomas Tray, who will deliver our prepared remarks. Stephen Willey, David Neil Lebowitz, Matteo Trotta, and Mohamed Issa will also be available for the Q&A portion of today's call. I would like to point out that we will be making forward statements, which are based on our current expectations and beliefs. These statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties, and our actual results may differ materially. I encourage you to consult the risk factors discussed in our SEC filings for additional detail. I will now hand the call over to William Meury.

Alexis, thank you, and good morning, everyone. I'll cover two topics today. First, I'll give an overview of our performance in 2025. Then I'll turn to our outlook for 2026 and beyond, and the steps we're taking with our core business and pipeline to transition Incyte. As I touched on at JPM, there were several achievements in 2025 that stand out. First, our business exceeded expectations on three levels: total sales, Jakafi sales, and our core business sales ex-Jakafi. Second, we fundamentally changed the shape and maturity of our pipeline. We moved multiple assets from early to late-stage development. We now have several outlier opportunities for the treatment of MPNs, pancreatic cancer, colorectal cancer, and HS, that have the potential to drive revenue, earnings, and cash flow into the next decade. Finally, regulatory applications for Jakafi XR, Opsilor for moderate AD, and povastatinib for HS in Europe were submitted on a timely basis. The point here is we have much greater visibility into the potential growth profile of the company now than we did at the start of 2025. Everything we accomplished this past year commercially, scientifically, and operationally has created the foundation for an inflection point in '26 and beyond. Now I'll speak to our performance in '25 and the outlook for '26. Turning to revenue, the business performed exceptionally well this past year. Revenues in the fourth quarter totaled $1.51 billion, up 28% versus the prior year. For the full year '25, revenue totaled $5.14 billion, up 21% year over year. This was driven by strong commercial performance and an increase in milestone and contract revenue. Net sales in the fourth quarter totaled $1.22 billion, representing a 20% increase versus the prior year. For the full year '25, net sales were $4.35 billion, also up 20% year over year, exceeding both expectations and our guidance. Growth was broad-based with nearly every product contributing meaningfully. Focusing on our core business, Jakafi sales totaled $1.26 billion, representing over $400 million in growth and a 53% increase versus 2024. Opsalora, Niktimbo, and Manjoovi were the largest absolute growth contributors. This core business is expected to grow over 30% in '26 and has the potential to grow at a 15% to 20% five-year CAGR and approach $3 to $4 billion by 2030. Now a few comments about the key products, Jakafi, Opsilora, and our hematology and oncology products. Starting with Jakafi on slide nine, fourth quarter and full year sales exceeded expectations. In the fourth quarter, sales were $828 million, an increase of 7% versus the prior year. Full year sales totaled $3.093 billion, representing an 11% increase year over year. Jakafi remains an integral part of our business, and keeping it healthy is a priority. It continues to serve as a funding source for our pipeline and for future product launches. A few comments on the fundamentals of this business. First, prescriptions increased 11% in the fourth quarter and 9% for the full year 2025 despite a growing base and competition. Second, demand was up across all three indications. PV will be the largest and fastest-growing indication in '26. And with a penetration rate of only 30%, versus 60 to 70%, in frontline MF, it should be a reliable and significant source of growth going forward. And finally, formulary coverage for Jakafi remains excellent with near-complete coverage across plans. In '26, we expect net sales to be $3.22 billion to $3.27 billion. Prescriptions are expected to grow at a high single-digit rate, representing mid-single-digit sales growth compared to 2025. In terms of '26, given this timing, the second half of the year will be mostly about formulary access. '27 will be focused on conversion. We'll share more about our launch plans in future calls. Now, we'll turn to slide 10 for Opsalor. Net sales in the fourth quarter totaled $207 million, an increase of 28%, and full-year net sales were $678 million, up 33% versus 2024. Growth was driven by increased penetration in the US AD and vitiligo markets, where Opsilora prescriptions climbed 24% and 15%, respectively. The pediatric launch for Opsilor AD is off to a strong start in the United States, with sales already annualizing around $30 million. Both dermatologists and parents are increasingly seeking nonsteroidal options for atopic dermatitis, driven by concerns about long-term steroid use. International sales for Opsilora and vitiligo doubled to $130 million in 2025. In '26, we expect sales of $750 million to $790 million, representing roughly a 15% increase at the midpoint. This estimate is based primarily on continued double-digit volume growth in the United States for AD and vitiligo, partially offset by price actions to expand formulary coverage, as well as sustained double-digit growth internationally off of a larger base as we lap the strong full-year launch for Vitiligo in Europe. Most of the benefits of the moderate AD launch in Europe will be seen in '27 and beyond. As I said, our aim long-term is to nearly double the size of this business. The nonsteroidal segment of the AD market is growing 20% year over year, creating a significant tailwind as prescribing migrates from topical steroids to nonsteroidal options. We still have a modest share of each of those segments, so there is substantial headroom for growth. In addition to this, our international business and new indications will serve as meaningful catalysts for the next phase of expansion. And now on slide 11, we'll turn to our hematology and oncology products. Net product sales in the fourth quarter were $187 million, up 121% compared to the prior year. Full-year '25 sales were $583 million, representing an 83% increase compared to 2024, driven by Niktymbo, Manjuli, and

Thank you, William, and good morning, everyone. As William mentioned earlier, in 2025, the pipeline reached a new level of breadth and maturity, setting up a materially different outlook for the company going forward. First, our approved portfolio and regulatory footprint broadened with approvals for Mounjube in follicular lymphoma,

Thanks, Pablo. As William mentioned earlier, our total revenues and product revenues for the quarter were $1.51 billion and $1.22 billion, respectively, increasing 28% and 20% from the prior year. For the full year, our total revenues and product revenues were $5.14 billion and $4.35 billion, respectively, increasing 21% and 20% from the prior year. Our GAAP R&D expenses were $611 million for the quarter, increasing 31% from the prior year. Our GAAP R&D expenses were $2.05 billion for the year. Ongoing R&D expenses increased 8% year over year, driven by continued investment in our late-stage development assets. Moving to SG&A, GAAP SG&A expenses were $390 million for the quarter, increasing 19% year over year. Our GAAP SG&A expenses were $1.38 billion for the year, increasing 11% year over year, primarily driven by costs associated with the U.S. Oncology product launches in 2025 and the timing of certain other expenses. Ongoing operating expenses for the full year 2025 increased 11% year over year compared to a 19% increase in ongoing revenues during the same period, leading to a continued increase in operating leverage and margins. I'll now turn the call back over to William Meury.

Thanks, Thomas. Before we close, I want to reiterate our revenue guidance and address our expense outlook for 2026. As mentioned earlier, we have set full-year '26 revenue guidance of $4.77 billion to $4.94 billion, representing a 10% to 13% increase from the prior year. This includes net revenue expectations for Jakafi of $3.22 to $3.27 billion, Opsilora of $750 to $790 million, and hematology oncology of $800 to $880 million. Sales for our core business ex-Jakafi will range between $1.57 billion and $1.69 billion, representing roughly a 30% growth rate at the midpoint in 2026. As it relates to expenses, I think we've achieved the right balance between maintaining financial discipline and ensuring we are not underfunding strategic initiatives or compromising our growth prospects. We will continue to get leverage out of this business where we can, so that we can create financial breathing room to invest where it matters most. Ultimately, what we're solving for is the steepest possible growth curve post-'29 and durable earnings and cash flow. We expect total GAAP R&D and SG&A operating expenses to be $3.495 billion to $3.675 billion in '26. At the midpoint, this represents a 4% increase versus the prior year, driven primarily by targeted investments in our late-stage pipeline and launch readiness while maintaining tight control elsewhere. We expect R&D to be up roughly 10% from last year, consistent with advancing programs that we believe can meaningfully shape the company's future. 80% of our investment in R&D is concentrated in the seven programs Pablo reviewed earlier. As it relates to SG&A, G&A will be down 10% compared to last year, while sales and marketing is modestly higher to support the key launches in the second half of the year. Together, SG&A will remain relatively flat year over year, reflecting deliberate reallocation rather than broad-based spending. Finally, we anticipate the cost of goods to remain relatively stable in the 8% to 9% range of net sales. We have an excellent set of opportunities in front of us and a path to replace Jakafi. What matters most right now, like at any company, is execution, getting things done, which means orchestrating product launches, running multiple phase three trials to tight timelines, and managing the business at a detailed level. With that, I'll turn the call over to the operator for Q&A.

Thank you. We'll now be conducting a question and answer session. A confirmation tone will indicate your line is in the question queue. You may press star 2 if you would like to remove your question from the queue. And as a reminder, we ask that you please ask one question, then return to the queue. Press star 1 to be placed in the question queue. Our first question is coming from Marc Frahm from TD Cowen. Your line is now live.

Hi. Thanks for taking my questions and congrats on the progress. Maybe to start with Pablo, for the CALAR pivotal programs, just your latest thoughts as you've gotten into designing the phase three, just kind of how to address the potential differences for nine eighty nine and dosing some of the different calR mutations to ensure full potency. Is the best approach to start low, titrate up for those that need it, maybe prospectively wrap people to different starting doses, or is it just to simplify things and max out the dose for everyone? And then maybe just a quick clarifying thing on the commentary around Opsolar pricing. How much of that was driven by your entry into new markets and needing to access those versus maybe some of the competitive launches putting pressure on the existing indications?

Yeah, go ahead. Pablo will take the first one. Thanks for the question, Marc. Good morning, Marc. So we're going to discuss this with the FDA this quarter. So I'm going to try not to get too far ahead of ourselves. What we're proposing in principle and for the ET second-line study, which we intend to initiate this half in 2026, is first of all, the enrollment would be in all patients, patients with all types of mutations, both type one and non-type one mutations. And we're going to discuss with the FDA a dosing strategy which we think will address the differential potency of nine eighty nine across the mutations that you brought up in your question. We're confident that we have a good strategy. We're also going to discuss the primary endpoint of the study, which obviously will be some version of hematologic response, but the question there is the timing for the evaluation of the primary endpoint, which we would like to discuss with the agency. So all in all, I think we're in a good position. I think we submitted a good package. We look forward to interacting with the agency, and we'll provide an update later this year.

Thanks, Pablo. And, Marc, as it relates to Opsalor, it's not a competitive issue. We take a very long-term view of Opsalora, have exclusivity to the end of the next decade. We just launched a pediatric indication. We potentially could have an HS indication. The market is really moving, as you know, as I mentioned, prescribing migrates from steroidal topicals to nonsteroidal topicals. This was about improving formulary coverage for the long term at the major PBMs so that it's a frictionless experience for dermatologists and patients. And I would expect the impact on ASP in '26 to roll off in 2027 and beyond. We'll be providing fewer discounts in the future than we did in the past. That's it. Thanks for the question.

Thank you. Next question is coming from Tazeen Ahmad from Bank of America. Your line is now live.

Hi, guys. Good morning. Thanks for taking my question. Also, one on Opsalora. So can you just give us your sense of what the uptake is in the current approved indications? And the average number of tubes that are being used? We understand the importance of being on formulary, but we'd also like to get a better sense of how to better model sales on a go-forward basis. Thanks.

Yeah. I can break this down a little, Tazeen. First, the AD business is growing at almost 20% year over year. You saw that in our 25 results. And then you have a vitiligo business that's growing in the mid-teens. And roughly, 60% of our business is AD, and roughly 40% of it is vitiligo. I would also comment that we launched for pediatrics in 2025. And that business, when you look at prescription data on a weekly basis, is already annualizing at $30 million. So when you're thinking about modeling Opsalora, that business is going to grow over the next five years at about a 10% CAGR. That's how we think about net sales. The other piece of Opsalor that you have to think about is the international business. Now internationally, we finished '25 with $130 million in sales in Vitiligo. We're launching for moderate AD in that same market in the second half of the year, most of the benefit will be in '27. The AD market is five times the size of the vitiligo market. So I estimate there's probably $300 million in incremental revenue for Opsilora internationally over the next five years. So we're going to finish the year at roughly $700 million, give or take, just below. $300 million of that comes from the United States driven by AD and Vitiligo. And then $300 million internationally just with the launch in Modern AD. What I haven't factored into this is if we get an indication for HS for Opsilor at the 2027. Most of our growth will be volume. We expect some modest price actions over the next several years. I think most of the heavy lifting as it relates to securing formulary coverage and the investment in that is behind us. That's how you think about this business. Essentially, you're going to grow at a CAGR of, call it, 10 to 15%. Thanks for the question.

Thank you. Next question today is coming from Michael Schmidt from Guggenheim Securities. Your line is now live.

Hey. Good morning, guys. This is Rosie on for Michael. Thanks for taking our questions. Just some questions on Frontline. I guess, longevity succeeding in a frontline PLBCL, you had mentioned that, you know, fifty percent of patients are receiving R-CHOP. But just help us understand how you're thinking about the overall opportunity for Monjuvi in this setting and just positioning versus Polyvi. And then a quick follow-up. I was on the trial, with the IPI eligibility criteria, it seems like the trial would maybe have a higher enrichment of patients with a poor prognosis. So I guess in this context, how should we think about the PFS benefit that you reported and are there any implications here for Monjuvi's potential use across a broader frontline population? Thank you.

Great questions. I'll have Pablo answer the second question and then we'll double back and answer the first question. Thanks, Pablo.

So you're correct. The study was focused on patients with IPI three to five, and that is a group with the worst prognosis compared to what has been reported by some of our competitors in the frontline DLBCL setting. I also would encourage you. What we know today, obviously, as mentioned in the script, is that about half the patients are still getting R-CHOP. And the recently introduced competitors in this space do not address the need of all patients with DLBCL. As you know, there's an entire subset of patients here with GCB DLBCL that are not currently addressed by one of the more recent entries in the space. We look forward to showing the full benefit of MONJUVY in this patient population. We think that the benefit in PFS that we reported is very competitive. As you know, the safety profile of Mounjube is very well established in this context. So we'll discuss the results in more detail over the course of the year. But we're very encouraged by what we're seeing across the entire spectrum of patients on DLBCL with IPI three to five. I'll just make a couple of comments, and then I'll ask Mohamed Issa, who runs Manjoovi, to finish up. Right now, we're going to have, by the '26, early '27, a three-indication product. And we'll finish this year somewhere in the range of the mid-$200 million. With an indication of frontline DLBCL, and I don't see it as a fight to the death between Polyvia and Manjoovi. We have a very positive study in frontline DLBCL with clear separation in terms of PFS. It's simply an intensification strategy with Manjoovi being added to LEN and R-CHOP versus a substitution or replacement strategy with Polyvi. And so there's incremental revenue associated with Manjoovi that will support building this core business in 2030 to $3 to $4 billion. Mohamed, do you have anything to add?

Yeah. Thanks. Thanks, Rosie, for the question. First-line DLBCL represents the largest potential opportunity for Manjoovi with approximately 30,000 patients treated annually. And fifty percent of those patients, as was mentioned, are still being treated with R-CHOP today. And as William just described, Mounjeevi is an addition to R-CHOP versus replacing R-CHOP. And as Pablo mentioned, the full spectrum of efficacy across all different types of patients with the PFS benefit that has been communicated, I think positions Manjoovi not just for short-term growth, but continues to make Manjoovi a meaningful contributor as you heard from William and others around our growth story in 2029 and beyond. Thanks for the question, Rosie.

Thank you. Next question today is coming from Eric Schmidt from Cantor Fitzgerald. Your line is now live.

Thanks for my question. Maybe I'll ask about 890, your bispecific for colorectal cancer. Are we going to see any additional phase one two data in 2026? And does the pivotal study have an interim analysis? Thanks.

Thanks, Eric. Pablo, do you want Steven to take that?

Yes. Eric, good morning. So, yes, you will see additional data over the course of the year. That program, as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, was initiated. The phase three study was initiated already. We're in the process of expanding the footprint. We have identified more than 200 sites globally to execute this study, and we look forward to sharing updated data both in combination with falxpivacizumab as well as other combinations that we are implementing for that program. So you'll see more data over the course of the year. We'll give more clarity on the specific timing of those as the year progresses, depending on submissions to different conferences.

Thank you. Next question today is from Salim Syed from Mizuho. Your line is now live.

Hi. This is Eric Lavington on for Salim Syed. Thanks for taking our question. I was just wondering if we could get a little bit more color on the Opsilura in PN and why the FDA was asking for another phase three or recommending it. If that has any read-through to the Opsilor in HS or if it per chance might have to do with trial designs for, you know, HSPN. Thanks.

Great. Thanks for the question. Steven Stein will answer that for you.

Eric, thank you. You asked a few questions related to both PN and HS. So just in Pablo's prepared remarks, if you remember, we conducted two large Phase 3s in prurigo nodularis. The one study was positive and statistically significant. The second study just missed. Based on comments during the year that the FDA made, we approached them if their combined analysis could suffice to get across the finish line. Because we have conducted two studies and one was negative, they strongly recommended that an additional trial, a third study, would be needed in the setting and would obviously have to be positive to get it across the finish line. So it's a unique situation where we had two studies, one positive, one negative. And as Pablo said, that's why, you know, the program's currently paused while we debate whether or not to conduct an additional study. There is no read-through to HS. In our HS studies, we're doing standard regulatory development. Again, two large phase threes accruing very well. As you know, our proof of concept data is very strong there. And, obviously, we want those studies to be positive and get across the finish line. I don't know if Pablo wants to add anything else.

No. I just I will just add just a small comment on PN. While the second study did barely miss the primary endpoint of itch, it was very positive for the investigator global assessment of treatment success. So we're convinced that Opsalura has strong efficacy in patients with prurigo nodularis. As I mentioned in my prepared remarks, we paused further development there. We're discussing whether we will or will not do an additional trial to try to support that indication. I obviously agree with Steven. I don't think there's any read-through to the HS indication.

Thank you for the question.

Thank you. Next question is coming from Salveen Richter from Goldman Sachs. Your line is now live.

Good morning. Thanks for taking my question. Could you speak to the M. KLR bispecific here? You've guided to Phase I data next year. Maybe tell us more about this asset and how it could be differentiated from your current MKLR program. And then on June, where we'll see initial phase one data in the second half, is your current level of conviction for this asset? Walk us through the profile you want to see here to make that go, no-go decision. Thank you.

Thanks, Salveen. Pablo will take that.

Thank you, Salveen. Good morning. So let me take first the CALAR by CD three bispecific program. So that study is really now accelerating. So we're very encouraged that enrollment is going well. As you might remember, we designed our CALAR by CD T cell engager bispecific purposefully with the KALR arm binding to a different epitope from our KALAR antibody. The reason for that is, obviously, if patients for some reason do not respond to the KOLAR antibody, there would be ideal targets for the bispecific. Now in terms of understanding where exactly we'll place the bispecific in the treatment paradigm for patients with MPNs, I think it's too soon for me to elaborate too much there. We believe that there might be some patients that require a more potent approach or that require a molecule that produces faster responses or perhaps that after initial responses to the cholera antibody for some reason progress. As we generate the efficacy data that we will have next year for the bispecific, we will get more clarity on the working position in the treatment paradigm in patients with MPNs. As you know, and I reiterated at ASH last year, our goal by the end of the decade is to have a treatment solution for every single patient with MPNs. That's why we think that bispecific could play a role. Now in terms of the V six seventeen F program, we remain fully convinced that if you hit this driver mutation, the V six one seven M mutation patient MPN, if we hit it hard enough, we will get the same type of outcomes that we saw with the color antibody in MFNET and ET. This is a driver mutation. We have a small molecule inhibitor. We have a very strong preclinical package that we present repeatedly. And we believe that if we hit it hard enough, we will get the same kind of transformative clinical effects and molecular effects that we saw with nine eighty nine. We just need to generate that data. We are now entering the clinic with a new formulation that we've discussed recently, a solid dispersion formulation. We will have data later this year. Once we have that data, we'll tell you what the next steps for the program are.

And, Pablo, also the key is that with six one seven F, we'll cover three MPNs: MF, ET, and PV. Not just MF and ET. And the mutation frequency, as you know, Salveen, is two times, three times what it is for CalR. And so you'd essentially, with six seven, cover 80% of MF, ET, and PV.

Thank you. Our next question today is coming from Jay Olson from Oppenheimer. Your line is now live.

Oh, hey. Thanks for taking the question. As you plan your 12 D PDAC study, can you share your thoughts on the trial design and how are you viewing the competitive landscape that's evolving in PDAC and potential advantages for your program? And do you plan to run any additional phase three studies beyond PDAC?

I'm going to have Steven comment on the trial design, then I can come back with the competitive landscape and the expansion of this program. Go ahead.

Yes, Jay. Thank you for the question. So as Pablo said in the updated ASCO GI, we had that thirty-seven percent response rate. We're very encouraging data on duration of response, potentially a read-through. Duration of treatment to PFS. So we're really encouraged. I think the second really important point there was the ability to combine our twelve D inhibitor with both standard of care chemotherapy regimens in the frontline. So gemobraxane plus modified fulforinox and the ability to deliver those regimens with the dose. So you can read through to that. Obviously, the study will go up on quintiles.gov as soon as it's open. And we intend to do a first-line study in combination with both chemotherapy regimens. We'll stratify accordingly, probably be 50-50% approximately each use, and then it'll be a comparison to the chemotherapy with standard time to event endpoints. We may look at things along the way in terms of response rate, etcetera, but it's a time to event study in that setting. In terms of other studies beyond PDAC, obviously, this is a compound that we really like. I just alluded to the activity in PDAC. We have interesting activity in other tumor types where 12 D is important, like colorectal cancer, and lung, etcetera. So stay tuned to developments there. And including in PDAC as well, there's potential to potentially do things like adjuvant or neoadjuvant studies as well, which, you know, we'll outline as soon as we're ready to do so. So it's an important compound to us. We, you know, may well be the first 12 D to get across the finish line in terms of mutation-specific therapy in a large tumor with massive unmet need and the ability to combine with both first-line standards of care chemotherapy.

Thanks, Steven. And, Jay, just regarding the competitive landscape, and I think this is true not just for seven thirty four or G12D, but also TGF beta by PD one. Both these cancers' response rates are low, survival times are short. And there haven't been novel treatments in the frontline setting in decades. G12D as a target was the Everest of oncology. TGF beta by PD one, no one's cracked the code. Now we have to convert phase one to phase three. But I don't think this is about competition. These are the largest wide-open white spaces in cancer. We could be first or early in pancreatic, and we could be first and only in colorectal. So right now, we have to execute this program. And as Pablo talked about and Steven, expand these programs. And we have the capabilities and the resources to maximize both assets. If we ever needed a partner, we would think about that carefully, expand our geographic reach, and we would do it on our terms. But we are sort of locked in on both of these, and I think competition is less important in phase three, execution is most important.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from Matt Phipps from William Blair. Your line is now live.

Great. This is Madeline on for Matt Phipps. Thanks for taking our question. On POVO in HS, did the pre-NDA discussions with the FDA discuss the potential to include biologic-naive patients in the labeled indication? Thanks.

Yeah. Thank you for the question. I'll let Steven Stein answer it.

Yes, obviously, our study included both populations, pre-biologic and post-biologic. In fact, about thirty-three to thirty-six percent of patients had biologic exposure. You saw the activity, which we updated during the year, you know, showing extremely encouraging Hiscar response rate that increases over time. Excellent pain control upwards of seventy percent of patients over time, having little to no pain, and excellent data on draining tunnel. And that includes both populations. The post-biologic activity is a little higher. We submitted the NDA as we alluded to in our remarks, and that'll be by the end of this first quarter, should be signed off by the FDA. And we are seeking a label in both populations.

Thank you. Our next question today is coming from Judah Farmer from Morgan Stanley. Your line is now live.

It's Parth on for Judah. Thanks for taking our question. We just wanted to get incremental color on expectations for the nine eighty nine readout in frontline MF later this year. What are you guys looking for in order to kind of move forward in that setting? Thank you.

Great. So by the second half of this year, we'll have a pretty substantial dataset in patients with previously untreated myelofibrosis. And we're randomizing patients to nine eighty nine versus a combination of nine eighty nine ruxolitinib. So we'll have a very good understanding of what the efficacy is in that population. Now let me make something very clear. I believe the data we have today with nine eighty nine that we presented at ASH, that we have with nine eighty nine mostly previously treated patients with MF, a little bit of naive patients that were not eligible for Jakafi. I am convinced that the efficacy and safety of nine eighty nine will support development in the first-line setting. We do need the dataset that we'll present later this year in order to discuss with the FDA how to design and implement the phase three trials. But I am fully convinced that this medicine will be developable in first-line MF. And we'll give you more clarity later this year.

Thank you. Next question today is coming from Andy Chen from Wolfe Research. Your line is now live.

This is Brandon on for Andy. Thanks for taking the question. Regarding the XR, any preliminary conversations with payers on formulary access? Or early signs that give you confidence on the eventual launch here? Thank you.

Yeah. It's a good question. We absolutely have had conversations with every major PBM. Here's how I would think about it. I think that Jakafi is the perfect product for an XR formulation. Because if you think about it, it treats a chronic symptomatic disease. The twice-a-day drug with a three-hour half-life. And we know that once-a-day formulations produce an adherence gain of 15 to 25%. So there is a medical reason why this product should be put on formulary. That's point number one. Point number two is we have to set a price that makes sense for the PBMs and the health plans for the patients, and for Incyte. And there is a price point that's going to make sense. We think about it in three contexts. One, is what is the net cost of the plan? Two, what is the coinsurance and patient out of pockets? And then three, what will be rebates? Now a new product, your goal is to get 80 to 100% coverage. With an extended-release formulation like Jakafi, you're probably not going to reach into that top tier of formulary coverage. But we should get enough formulary coverage to enable a conversion rate of 10 to 30%, pick the midpoint. Most of '26 will be about that. You'll start to see meaningful conversion in 2027. Thanks for the question.

Thank you. Next question today is coming from Evan Seigerman from BMO Capital Markets. Your line is now live.

Hi, Thank you so much for taking my questions. When you're thinking about the Phase III HS data for OPSILURA in 4Q, talk to me about how you plan to manage the placebo response to this trial, especially with it being tested in kind of the mild to moderate patient population, which you could have a more exaggerated dynamic with the placebo. Thank you, guys.

Thanks, Evan. Go ahead, Steven.

Yeah, Evan. Thanks for the question. You're right. So when you have a lower burden of abscess and nodules, you can get an inflated placebo response rate. The two ways we're managing that in the phase three are a larger study, a greater n, and then setting the minimum number of requirements on abscess and nodules, which should manage an artificial placebo response rate. And then also looking at higher rates of Hiscar control, like Hiscar 75. So all of the above, larger study, minimum number of abscess and nodules, and a higher Hiscar control rate, and then, obviously, two studies as well. And that's the main ways we're trying to control the placebo response rate. Thanks.

Thank you. Next question is coming from Derek Archila from Wells Fargo.

Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking the questions. Just quickly, so how much revenue contribution from RUX XR are you really baking into the Jakafi guide? And I just wanted to clarify. So you highlighted 30% penetration for Jakafi in PV right now. I guess, what level do you think you can get to before LOE? Thanks.

As it relates to the guidance for 2026, there's no incremental revenue associated with XR in that number. And so we expect that Jakafi in '26 between MF, PV, and GVHD will grow in the high single digits, and there is going to be some modest price actions, and that gets us to the current guidance. When you think about this business over the next three years, the two indications that are growing at a double-digit rate are PV and GVHD. And I would look at this as a, you know, mid maybe mid to high single-digit grower between now and 2028, the '28 when we actually transition and generics are introduced. I think it's the best way to model and think about the business. I think I've been pretty consistent about how to think about Jakafi. And as it relates to conversion, if we can pick up, take the midpoint 20%, you're going to have almost a quarter of $1 billion sitting at XR when we get to the twenty-ninth year. Thank you.

Thank you. Next question is coming from Brian Abrams from RBC Capital Markets. Your line is now live.

Hey, guys. Good morning. Thanks for taking my question. So on September, now that you have some alignment with the FDA, I was wondering if you could give us a sense of just the potential volumes and injection times that you're going to be testing for the subcu bioequivalence study. And maybe talk about the most probable path for integrating the subcu into the broader program and potential timelines there. Thanks.

So let me make a couple of comments on the subcu development. And it's a little bit early for me to answer your question with a lot of precision, so let me try this. The study will test the first thing we need to is what's the bioavailability of the formulation that we're going to test sub q. We obviously have preclinical data, but now we need human data to really understand exactly what that is. So that's point number one. The second, and as I mentioned, related to the first phase three trial in second-line ET is we need to align with the FDA, which we'll do this quarter, on the dosing strategy for patients with ET. Once we have those two pieces of data, bioavailability of the subcu formulation, and dosing strategy, I will be able to answer your question about volume and infusion time. As you remember, we signed a collaboration with Enable late last year, I believe in October, to use their infused device, which will allow very high volumes of infusion by the patients at home without the need to go to the doctor's office. It's a self-applied device. It takes about ten, fifteen minutes, and the patient does it without, you know, without any major discomfort. It's not a device the patients have to work continuously. They just do it during the time of infusion, and then they can remove it and throw it away. So we believe that that device will give us the alternative to really have a very simple subcutaneous infusion experience for patients, pretty much regardless of the dose. But in terms of specifics, we need a little bit more data to fully answer the question. We'll have that data over the course of the year.

Thank you. Our next question is coming from Steven Willey from Stifel. Your line is now live.

Yes, good morning. Thanks for taking the question. On the mutant selective JAK inhibitor, I know you've made some comments recently about 35 being the exposure target that's needed to seek clinical benefit. Can you just elaborate on why you think that's the right target exposure if that's somehow limited by cross-reactivity on wild type and just whether you think the new formulation can get you meaningfully higher than IC 35? Thanks.

Yeah. It's an excellent question. So the reason for the IC 35 focus with the o five a program is because that's specific to o five a. It's not about the target. It's about the selectivity of the molecule that we have in the clinic. And that's what the animal model data suggests. That there is a window, the ideal window of selectivity between the effect on the mutant in the v six one seven mutant and the wild type is around the IC 35. So we believe that with the current formulation, based on preclinical data, we should be able to achieve that level of exposure. That question will be answered relatively quickly over the course of this year. And we believe we'll then have clinical data in the second half of 2026. But the IC 35 is related to the selectivity of the molecule. Now as I mentioned, I think towards the end of last year, we reiterated at JPMorgan earlier this year, we do have backup programs in this space. We are fully committed to this target. We believe hitting this target hard will translate into clinical benefit in this patient. So whether it's 58 in the second half of this year, we'll provide clarity on addressing this target or one of the backup programs remains to be seen, but we're fully committed to answering this question.

Thank you. Our final question today is coming from Srikripa Devarakonda from Truist Securities. Your line is now live.

Hey, guys. Thank you so much for taking my question. I wanted to just get your expectations for provercitinib in asthma with the phase two readout coming up. And also, you can help us understand where you see a place for this drug in the therapeutic landscape. Is it pre-biologic oral or for patients who are refractory? I know it's a little early ahead of the data, but any color you can give would be helpful. Thank you.

Yeah. I'll take the second part of your question, which I think relates to povastatin and HS. And then I'll turn it over to Pablo. I think the key here with povastatin is to think about what's happening in the obesity market right now. An oral pill. There is a lot of energy around Wegovy. Now I'm not suggesting that HS is like obesity. But there's a couple hundred thousand people in the United States being diagnosed and treated with HS. Only about twenty-five percent of those patients are taking an advanced systemic, and the only advanced systemics available are the IL-17s and TNFs. That's fifty thousand people. A hundred and fifty thousand people using products that are not approved for HF, antibiotics, and steroids. Our ability to drive sales of povastatin is to get to that group, that 75% of the market, where they haven't advanced to a biologic, they're not getting complete control with an antibiotic or a steroid. And so I think the path here is to get to this pre-biologic population, and 70% of our data are in that population. POVO is tailor-made for this group of patients, and I do expect that there'll be a great deal of trial and adoption. Once that happens, there's, of course, the post-biologic, and half the people that are on IL-17 don't get a full response, and so there are going to be patients there. The next thing we have to do as a company is create an experience for patients or physicians and make it easy to get the product. And that means making sure we verify benefits, we get the time to first fills really short, we clear PAs, and we reduce the abandonment rate. And if we do those two things, povastatin is going to be a major driver of revenue for this company in HS. And then, of course, you layer in PN and vitiligo, and we have a very sizable product. That's how I would think about it. If you want to turn to the asthma piece,

So, look, we know from all the data that we've been generating over the past several years across a range of indications that povastatin is a very strong, very potent anti-inflammatory medicine. In that context and knowing that asthma is an inflammatory disease, I think there's a strong rationale. There was a strong rationale when the study was started to develop over significant asthma, particularly in patients, obviously, that don't respond to inhaled corticosteroids or long-acting beta agonists, and particularly in patients with low eosinophilic asthma. Now we are conducting a well-designed randomized phase two study. We will have the data later this year. And based on that, we'll decide next steps. But, obviously, there was a strong scientific rationale to do that, and we look forward to sharing the data later this year.