Welcome to all of you here in beautiful London, as well as to all of you who are joining us online. I think it's an understatement to say we've been looking very much forward to today. The reason for that is that we're incredibly excited to tell our story to you. We are incredibly convicted that there is a bright future for Novo, but we also realize that it's not enough for us to be convicted. We have to convince you, and that starts with a bit of a story. It starts with where are we going to go? How are we going to get there? Maybe more importantly, how should you hold us accountable along the journey? That's what we're going to do today. Our story really starts with this slide. It's a slide that shows, on one hand, how large the market for Novo Nordisk is. On the other hand, how horrible this unmet need is for billions of people that are suffering every single day. Yet, Novo, of course, has treatments for many of them. We are very proud that 46.5 million people wake up every single day using one of our products. While we are proud of the number 46.5 million, these are billions. The gap is incredibly large, and we need to somehow close the gap. We need to work harder, and we will. Of course, unmet need on its own does not translate into good business proposal. We need to be able to develop medicine, best-in-class medicine. We need to be able to make plenty of it, and we need to make sure that somehow our medication gets connected to a good portion of these individuals through access, affordable access. We will be able to share all of that with you today as we go through our presentations, how we're planning to make medications, how to make them in abundant, and how to provide access. By the end of today, when you leave through these doors and the Capital Market Day is finished, we have a hope that we've been able to somewhat explain the story of our growth and the diversification of our pipeline. We need to be able to show you through our pipeline that we can make medication that is diversified and goes across different therapy areas. We will also need to explain to you that we need to be able to go from science to some incredibly successful launches over this period, giving us a sustainable growth for years to come. Last but not least, we'll need to invest in R&D and in our commercial activities to remain competitive, but also have the discipline to be incredibly cost-conscious where we need to be, so we can deliver attractive returns. For the agenda of today, we'll take you from strategy all the way towards execution. I'll start by setting the direction, by explaining where we need to go, where we are planning to end up in 2030, and even beyond. Then I will have Martin come and explain about science, how we're planning to fuel all that scientifically based on innovation. Together with Hong, they will talk about the portfolio strategy and where to play and what gives us the right to win in playing in those areas. Then we'll move to execution. I'll have my colleagues, Jamey and Emil, on each side of the Atlantic, telling you how they are operating now and how they plan to continue that operation as we go forward. We'll have Kasper explain to you how we're going to be okay supply-wise, and how we're going to make plenty of these products to make them available. Carsten will come at the end, put it all together, and try to tell you what our financial ambition is going to be. This is really the team who's going to drive this today, but also lead 67,000 individuals afterwards as we go back home executing on these strategies. It's a group of people that many of you know already, some familiar faces, but there are also some new ones in there. Despite their diversity, what unifies them is their experience. A very large amount of pharma experience is within this single picture. Experience is important, but I would say much more important than that is a can-do attitude. It's compassion, commitment, and the general conviction that we're going in the right direction, and they have that. You can test that during the breaks and the lunch. Grab them, please, and try and see are we in the right hand or not? I am incredibly proud of this team, and you can be the judge yourself as we go forward. We're going to need all their energy because the environment around us has fundamentally changed over the last even, I would say, five years ago. There are so many things that are different today than maybe even the last time where we had a Capital Market Day. Consumerism was not in our vocabulary last time we met. Today, many of our patients act more and more as consumers do. We have a situation where competition, as we are seeing it, has never been, at least in Novo's historical back. For decades long, this company operated in what you could argue as a duopoly often. Thanks to us, we created an incredibly attractive market, and now almost every other single pharma company, big or small, is trying to come and compete with us. We need to be ready for that. Of course, semaglutide became incredibly an important molecule in our industry, but so will the attention to its loss of exclusivity. We are seeing the early signs, of course, of that as some of the markets have gone LOE. Last but not least, price and access is also very different than what it just was a few years back. Yes, there's price pressure, healthcare pressure, as it was always there. But there are new dynamics that are certainly new to us. Who would have thought just a few years back that 90% of our Wegovy pill sales will go through a cash channel in the U.S.? It is very different than before. Now we need to have a response to all of that, and the good news is that we do. We do recognize it, and we actually think we have a response to all of that. If you think commercially, we are now running almost as an analogy, an airplane with two engines. We knew how the original engine works incredibly well. This is the healthcare professional world, the hospital setting, our sales force in the front line, going and convincing the physicians about our value and getting a prescription. That we know incredibly well, better than anyone else. We also, during the last couple of years, had to very quickly learn the second engine, the consumer engine. Not speak only to KOLs, but DOLs, digital opinion leaders. We have built a second-to-none version of the second engine also, I would say thanks to our entrance with semaglutide in obesity. We had to really hurry up and make sure that the demand is matched with supply, and I think all of that is public information now. Through that process, we also learn a lot. One of the better decisions I would subjectively say we made when I became a CEO was put the research and development together. They belong together. In less than 12 months, we started to see the benefits of the R&D being united again. We are launching while we are doing all of this. We are transforming while we basically are performing on the basis that we have had. We are also relooking at our organization. Today we have 66,000 individuals, and that is substantially lower than just 12 months back. We are trying to simplify the company, have less committees, have less bureaucracy, and do more work, and do it with a sense of urgency. I would dare to stand here with all the subjectivity that I have and say early signs are pretty good, just 12 months into our transformation. We look back and we try to see, has some of that shown an impact already? I would dare to say I think they have. The 7 million prescriptions that has been so far written for Wegovy pill makes it the best product launch in volume in U.S. across all different companies. That is pretty good, and I think we do get credit for that. Perhaps equally excited, coming from a commercial background, I get when I look at our market share graphs. They used to be going down for a period of time. We stabilized it, and over the last number of months, we have gained market share quite a bit, and both Jamey and Emil will show you those numbers as we go through. That is something we are very proud of and something we are working hard to retain. Last year, for the entirety of 2025, we brought three programs into clinical development, first human dose. As I stand here in August, September, we ended up basically having five so far, and Martin will show you that the numbers are going to go up much, much higher than this before we finish this year. That is speed, and perhaps connected to the unification of the organization I just spoke to. We made an incredibly difficult decision to say goodbye initially to 9,000 individuals, and then afterwards a further 4,000 have left the company. These are not easy decisions for us, but they were necessary. They were incredibly important as we are using the funds coming through this exercise to fuel for the future, fuel the R&D organization, as well as, of course, make ourselves more competitive. All of that brings me to our so-called updated corporate strategy. This is where we are going to go. We are going to start with what we know and we do incredibly well. That is our core, diabetes and obesity. This should not be a surprise to you. We do this incredibly well. We will strengthen our diabetes care, and you will see how shortly when my colleagues come on the podium. We recognize that a lot of growth will come from obesity, so we will expand from that. We will show you one of the broadest pipeline and explain more details into exactly how we are going to play with that. We also have decided that it is time to further diversify the company to build out future growth engines. To do that, first and foremost, we looked into some of our expertise. We have decades-long expertise and great people and scientists within rare blood disorders that we have operated in. We are broadening that. We are going further into that area and creating a new segment called blood and endocrine disorder. We have some fantastic drugs already on the market, and we are incredibly proud of some of the new ones that are coming very soon. You will hear about those also from my colleagues as they get on. Liver disease is an obvious place for us to also go. We have an indication with semaglutide, but that is not enough. We have some other assets, think about efroxifermin, that are exciting us incredibly a lot. Think about a person that might be worried about getting a liver transplant, and this drug might actually avoid that surgery. More to come. So that is an obvious place to go as well. The other obvious place is CV. Despite the setback that we all noticed with our ZEUS trial, this is a very obvious location for us to continue exploring and expanding upon when it comes to cardiometabolics. So CV also will be explained to you in the session. Then there is this third bucket, exploration of consumer Rx. What is that? This is where serious condition prescription medication meets incredibly strong consumer demand. The crossroad of these two will give us consumer Rx and our exploration within that area. This is not what many of our peers call consumer care or an entry into over-the-counter OTC products. This is where Novo has become second to none in expertise over the last two to three years in our ability to take a prescription medication and directly provide that to the consumers. We are very good at that today, and we will not let this go to waste. We will take two different routes. We will take some of our own assets where we feel there is a pathway, a scientific pathway to these conditions and develop them for that. We could do it as a standalone or in combinations with others, or we could go and look at assets that are out there through business development, and we will explore all of that. Along the way, we will make sure that exploration comes with a good business case and financials as well. So this is our promise to you. What gives us the right to win? Our unparalleled understanding of metabolic diseases, our best-in-class biomolecular engineering with especially the oral peptides, world-class manufacturing that I think you agree with us, it is really at scale and second to none, and last but not least, our global footprint. That is what we believe gives us the right to win within these areas. Many of you have heard me in various different fora talk about how proud of our pipeline we are. This slide is the reason why. This gives us multiple opportunities across different therapy areas, both in injectable as well as orals. And speaking of orals, I am specifically really proud of the oral pipeline that we have, and Martin will go much deeper into it and dissect this slide in different pieces and show you what excites us the most. We have seen with our Wegovy pill launch that there are a lot of people, an increasing number of people on both sides of the Atlantic, that simply do not want an injectable. They prefer an oral medication. It is fantastic that we are able to have such a high market share despite competition having arrived with our oral medication, and it is improving, and we will show you the numbers that we have. But it is not going to cut it on its own. We need to already today think about how we can keep that leadership. On one hand, of course, it will be all about manufacturing. On the other hand, it will be about innovation, and comes at the end, of course, our ability to continue launching these products like we just did. I am very, very, I would say, excited about this. When you look at this slide, what I would like you to remember from it is the headline. That is our ambition. We will have the plan to launch at least 5 multi-blockbusters by 2030, pretty much every year, and deliver a combined sales of more than 150 billion DKK in value in less than 10 years from today. This ambition is risk adjusted, which means it allows for development risks. This is what you should remember. Then I also want to make it incredibly concrete when it comes to our growth story for the next few years. We have a plan and an ambition to deliver from now until 2030, revenues and a compounded annual growth rate related to that on par with our industry peers. It is quite simple. Now, the question is, how are you going to do that? What are the building blocks of that? There are 3, 4 things actually. One, we will broaden the injectable portfolio that we have beyond sema. We will start with CagriSema very early next year. We will move from that to cagrilintide, CagriSema high dose the following year, zenagamtide the year after that, and soon after that with our 2 triple agonist. You will see all of that also as my colleagues get on this podium. That is broadening the injectable portfolio to cover so many of the segments that we believe can benefit from these injectable products. But we will also not stop there and expand our leadership on the oral side. We will continue with our Wegovy pill and make sure that we will basically able, first and foremost, to expand both molecularly but also manufacturally to have the leadership that we currently see go through this decade. At the last quarterly meeting, we announced to you that right now we have 1.5 million people on the Wegovy pill. Our promise to you is that by the end of this decade, we will have manufacturing that is able to cater for 10 times that number of patients. 10x what we basically do now, we will have ready to go, so that is actually secured. I just talked about our heritage with blood and endocrine. Our promise to you will be that by the end of the decade, that will also continue giving us a very decent growth, and we say more than 50% than today should be clocked in before the decade is over. Again, we will explain a little bit how and where and which products are behind that. Last but not least, I just spoke about it, we need to go to more patients. We need to capture a lot more volume and get some good value out of it. A huge tool in that front will be our direct consumer capabilities that are becoming really second to none. Our enhanced NovoCare platform will allow for that, and it will also allow for our consumer Rx to come and tag along as we will continue exploring that area. As we do that, we will also make sure that we improve the margins through this process as we go directly to consumers and don't need perhaps all the middle layers. So those are the pillars on how we will get there in the short period. Now, what happens after that? Let me get the elephant in the room out. Semaglutide LOE is what's in most people's mind, and rightfully so it should be. We do not belittle the LOE or the challenges that comes with it related to the price pressure. We see early signals of that, of course, here and there. The slide also shows you that we plan to come on the other side of the LOE as a bigger company than we are today, and a much more diversified version of it. That is our plan and promise to ourselves, and we wanted to execute that and explain that to you today. Now, what are the building blocks of that, and how are we going to actually do that? Well, they are written on the right-hand side of this graph. We will fiercely compete for some volumes, pre and post LOE. Our scale, our brand recognition, and basically our footprint on the ground allows us to do that. We are doing that today with some of the markets that have gone LOE, and we're learning a lot through that process. But we also recognize that's not going to be enough. We will get some volume, a lot of volume actually, and some value out of that. But that's not enough. We need more value. That's where innovation comes in. We will launch next waves of diabetes and obesity innovations long before the LOE has kicked in. I just elaborate on that when I showed you my pipeline slides, and even gave some key performance indicators for you to be aware of. So that is the second building block. Then we will basically need to really make sure we continue and expand on the oral segment. It is a segment that most people had a bit undervalued, perhaps, just 12 months back. You can see what has happened with the Wegovy pill, and maybe more importantly, you could see what Novo is able to do despite competition and competitive pressure. We will try to explain to you how we believe strongly we can keep that leadership as we go through the LOE process, and that will be a big part of the calculation. Last but not least, we spoke about building a future engine by launching more products outside of our core, especially within blood and endocrine, liver. That will also be part of the story post LOE. Finally, consumer Rx. We are going to explore that, don't write that off. There could be also some good things coming around then. Actually, Martin will give you some hints of what we already started to work on within that area. There is the business development part on the side, I have also mentioned that we will be more active within business development. We have done quite well on trying to look at the gaps we have, scientific gaps or strategic gaps in the company over the period, gone shopping. On the other hand, we also are not shy to say, increasingly we tell ourselves we do not have a patent or a monopoly on all the good ideas. So we have to go out and look what else people are doing. Look at this chart. We would not have been able to do what we are doing with Wegovy pill without Emisphere. They gave us the technology that allows us to encapsulate the peptide and administer it orally. Forma has given us etavopivat. You will hear about that, possibly best-in-class drug for sickle cell. Akero is giving us efruxifermin for late-stage MASH. United Lab, on the other side of the world, is giving us perhaps one of the best-in-class triple agonist, UBT251. We will continue doing that as we go forward. We will be selective, we will be disciplined, but we will continue bolting on via business development. We will also partner up with experts, AI leaders, e-health leaders, to augment and do more than we can do on our own commercially and technologically. In conclusion, I started with these three buckets and my wish for you to remember these as you go through the various different sessions. I also mentioned we would need your conviction, but we also need us to be held accountable vis-à-vis you on some very concrete things as we go forward quarter by quarter. What are those are going to be presented in every single session that you are going to see from now until 3:30 P.M. They will basically tell you that we are planning to launch more than 5 mega multi blockbuster by 2030. We will deliver a value risk-adjusted of more than 150 billion DKK in less than 10 years. It will also tell you that we plan to launch at least 10 phase III launches, 5 in the core, 5 in other areas. That is at least. To drive sustainable growth, we will give you a CAGR in line with our peers for this part of the decade, we will scale our oral manufacturing to 10 times more than the patients we serve today. So you do not have to worry anymore about can they actually drive this through with their orals? Now we are revealing the numbers to you. We will go from 46.5 million patients we serve today to more than 60 million if our calculation holds. To deliver attractive returns to you, we will have margins that will be broadly stable, so you don't have to worry about that, and we will maintain an attractive dividend per share, and Karsten will touch upon both of those at the end of today's session. This is our promise to you, and you will hear all the details of it as we go forward. First and foremost with Martin, who will take a deep dive into R&D. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mike. A very good morning to all of you. In principle, Mike has made life in R&D quite easy. The task is simple. We are to deliver a full diversified but also differentiated pipeline and portfolio to drive growth towards 2030, but also beyond 2030. We will do that in our core therapy areas of diabetes and obesity, but we will also expand into other therapy areas, building on our 100-year long expertise within cardiometabolic diseases. To deliver on that, we also have defined our 2030 ambitions. You have seen some of them from Mike. Part of driving pipeline growth is obviously to drive what comes into phase I, what comes out of research, what comes through business development. As Mike alluded to, we had 3 first human doses last year. That is not good enough. This year we are already at 5. I will show you later in the day that we will have at least 10 first human doses throughout the year, but actually the current list is 16. I have to assume for some attrition, but that is a fundamental step up going from 5 to 10, 15. These first human doses will happen in obesity. That is where we doubled down in the last year. They will happen in diabetes, but they will also happen in cardiovascular and liver disease. We also had to speed up. Again, in diabetes and obesity, where we are basically the most established drug developers, we have an ambition of delivering timelines of less than 5 years or equal to 5 years from first human dose to regulatory submission. That is a step up for us. It would also be a step up across industry. Based on our expertise, but also based on the digital AI levers that we have, this can be done. That also means that some of the first human doses that we have had this year, we have the ambition to bring to the market either before or around the turn of this decade. We spent the last year reestablishing the leading pipeline in diabetes and obesity. We have that in the clinical space. We will also have that in the research space, and you will see through the quality of the first human doses that they are not only driving for best in class within the incretin and amylin space, but also driving for novel targets within diabetes as well as obesity. For us, it is important to acknowledge that both diabetes and obesity are complex diseases. Not one treatment will deliver what every patient wants or needs. Therefore, we need to have a portfolio or pipeline that delivers to individual patient needs. That also means that we have to drive beyond incretins, beyond amylin for novel targets. At the end of the day, by 2030 we will deliver more than 10 programs. As Mike alluded to, five in diabetes and obesity at least, and at least five in other therapy areas. We are driving for at least five multi-blockbuster launches by 2030. This obviously doesn't happen in isolation. Mike alluded to less than one year or slightly more than one year ago, we became one R&D organization. We have spent some time streamlining the organization. As Mike alluded to, I have less than half of the direct reports that I had one year ago. That's actually more reflective of a streamlined organization with less silos, more synergies. That's driving efficiency, but it's also driving scientific synergies. We will talk more about AI, but based on the data that we have driven for the last 100 years in the research, but also in the clinical space, starting with diabetes, moving into obesity, then into the broader cardiometabolic space. We can leverage AI in a different way than most of our competitors. Someone brighter than me has said that data in AI is not just an input, it's the underlying foundation for AI intelligence. The quality, the representativeness of the data that we can put into our AI models will drive for something very unique. We will come back to that later in the day. We have also had to acknowledge that we need to understand where patients are. Very clearly in obesity, you are all talking about that. There's almost a consumer-like behavior in obesity as we speak today. Patients taking obesity medication are still patients, but they are acting like consumers. In an R&D space, we need to understand that, starting in research, but also moving into the development space. We will actually take that approach not only in obesity, but also in diabetes and all of our other disease areas, acknowledging that patients are not only faced with unmet medical needs, but they also have wants. They have things that they require from their medication. Acknowledging that patients are decision-makers, we need to get broader input from our commercial colleagues in a timely fashion. So we have already invited commercial colleagues in research. We do that through continuous development, and we actually stay as R&D people in the commercial space as well. So we have a continuous circle of feedback guiding us, what do patients need from a medical perspective, and what do patients want from their perspective? Then we have to acknowledge we don't do this in isolation. We established a lot of collaborations in the recent years. We have also done some acquisitions, and we will continue doing that not only in diabetes and obesity, but specifically also when we move into novel therapy areas. While we have restructured the R&D organization, we have not been idle. We have basically driven a very strong phase I pipeline. As you see, we already have a number of assets in phase I in diabetes, in obesity, in cardiovascular, in blood disorders, in liver disease. This is a major step up compared to where we have been in recent years. You will also notice that there are novel targets there. There are novel targets in diabetes, in obesity, going beyond what is GLP-1, what is amylin. As Mike alluded to, for the rest of this year, we are still looking into potentially 11 additional first human doses. Slightly more than half of those in obesity, but then more or less equally distributed among our other disease areas. I cannot promise you that there will be no attrition among those 11, so we are committing to a total number of 10, but in reality it could be as many as 15, 16. Again, this is a major step up of what we have done in recent years, and obviously a testament to what this organization can do when it comes to innovation. I also want to talk about the progress that we see in phase II. We have some really strong potential for best and for the triagonist first-in-class assets that will cater to not only diabetes and obesity, but potentially other disease areas in cardiovascular, but maybe even beyond cardiovascular. Importantly, you will also see oral Amylin 355 in phase II. This is, again, a testament to we are all driving for the highest weight loss. That is good. Not everyone with obesity needs a 20%-plus weight loss. There will be some patients, let us say patients with BMI 30, 35, who just need a moderate weight loss, but then preferably without too many side effects and too much hassle. The amylin biology in monotherapy is promising to be that. You have seen the cagrilintide data. At the doses that we have tested so far, around 12, 15% weight loss, but with less than half of the side effects that we see with the GLP-1 analogs. If we can deliver that as an oral as well, I think we will make a lot of patients feel that we try to meet them where they actually want their therapy. On the other side of that, we also have senegotide, we have UBT251, we have the triple that are driving for the bigger weight loss while still balancing safety and tolerability and also addressing comorbidities. Obviously in phase III, this is specifically where we are. We have senegotide, we have cagrilintide, and importantly again, senegotide is not only a subcutaneous offering, it is an oral offering. I think you will hear a theme here. We are very, very focused on the oral offerings. We will have at least five oral assets in clinic by the end of this year with the aim on delivering holistically to patients on the magnitude of weight loss, on tolerability, on convenience, and maybe also affordability. I will come back to that in a later session. At the end of the day, all of this is obviously reflective of a streamlined R&D organization, but it is also reflective of a substantial step up in R&D investments since 2021. That does lead to a great number of assets in diabetes and obesity, all of which being differentiated for different patient segments. At present, we have around 130 ongoing clinical trials, reflective of around 40,000 patients in those clinical trials. As you can probably imagine, with what we currently see in phase I and II and what we also see in the pre-clinical space, we expect to see a substantial step up in our clinical activities over the next just 1 to 2 years. Super exciting, but also leading to the potential of having at least one multi-blockbuster launch year on year towards 2030 and beyond 2030. A little bit about how we think about the R&D approach. We have the unique opportunity in that we have a foundational biology, we have foundational disease areas that still allows for substantial growth. When we work with insulins, when we work with GLP-1s, when we work with amylins in diabetes and obesity, we understand the biology, we understand the mechanism of action. We can allow for faster timelines. This is what we call slightly the lower risk parts of our pipeline. But we also have to acknowledge that within diabetes and obesity, and specifically beyond diabetes and obesity, we have to look at novel targets, novel modalities that will be associated with higher risk. But it's an incredible strength and benefit for us to being able to balance that portfolio so that at this point in time, we have approximately 50% of what I would call low risk, high reward, and around 50% of assets in our portfolio that is probably higher risk because of the novelty of their mechanism of action, their level of innovation, their ability to fundamentally change patients' trajectory. Higher risk, also very high reward. But at the center of all of this, we put the patient. Conventionally, we've talked about disease modification, focusing on efficacy, safety, comorbidities. This is not bad. We'll continue doing that. That's why we're here. But we also have to understand the patient is part of the journey. The patient is a decision maker. We've clearly learned that in obesity, but I think we are missing out if we don't take that learning into diabetes and all of our other therapy areas. So we'll think about convenience. We'll think about affordability. We'll think about tolerability of our medicines. Hong and I will discuss that in a later session. But again, this is something that we need to take in already in research and then obviously through development. One of our enablers is that we can move beyond proteins and peptides. Now, we believe that there is an an incredible strength in peptides, still in obesity, still in diabetes. You've seen the data comparing, for example, peptides and small molecule. There's no doubt at this point in time, with current technology, the peptides deliver the better efficacy, the better tolerability. But in some areas, and maybe in the future, other modalities, both in diabetes and obesity, but certainly also beyond, will be required for us. We have those modalities. We have the ability to do siRNA. We have the ability to do small molecules. As you will also see in a later session, we have at least four first human doses this year based on RNA technology in diabetes. This is based on our Dicerna acquisition. In that acquisition, we bought the technology, but we also bought the human capabilities to drive that. That basically means across our therapy areas, we can think about oligonucleotides as part of the journey. We can do the same in small molecules. Sometimes we'll need to think about antibodies and gene therapy. Typically, there we will partner up. But importantly, when we think about peptides, oral and subcutaneous, siRNA obviously giving a lot of possibilities, and with small molecules, sometimes we will focus on the oral journey, either because the biology wants that or because it is just a small molecule that will deliver convenience for the patient. I have talked about it a little bit. AI is another very, very important lever to us. We drive AI across R&D in research, in development. Sometimes for efficiency, sometimes for speed, most of the time for science. I am super happy to present and invite to the stage Mishal Patel, who is heading up the R&D AI and digital innovation to talk about that. Thank you, Martin. Good morning. As Martin mentioned, I have the privilege of leading our AI functionality within R&D. The role of the department is to actually translate the potential of AI into better R&D productivity. We do this by combining a century's worth of cardiometabolic knowledge along with proprietary data and state-of-the-art technology. That allows us, I should move on to the slide. That allows us to improve our quality decisions, as well as allow us to increase our speed of execution. We deliver this by having over 600 AI and digital professionals working alongside our scientists, and we complement this with partnerships with the external ecosystem where we can obtain leading-edge capabilities and help to scale our innovations faster. So what does this mean? In early discovery, we are able to take AI-driven virtual assays and prioritize genes which will demonstrate the biology of interest. This means we are able to get a threefold improvement in target hit rate, which allows us to actually focus. So it allows us to focus our experimental efforts on the genes and the targets which are most promising. We have the ability to actually develop state-of-the-art machine learning models, and we can actually deploy these in chemical design. Combined with automation, we are able to drastically improve and expand the chemical universe that we can sample and then reduce the time from hit ID to lead optimization. Within clinical development, we deploy AI to analyze our prior clinical studies, real world, and operational data to allow us to evaluate portfolio and trial design questions within minutes as opposed to weeks. Moreover, we are able to actually utilize predictive modeling to assess trial site performance and make better informed decisions around clinical trial country and site selection and patient recruitment. Finally, AI allows us to rapidly generate regulatory grade documents, which we have been able to scale across multiple document types. On this slide, I wanted to actually give you an example and go deep dive into where we have actually seen real potential. We actually bring all three components together here: internal expertise, decades of proprietary data, as well as technology. Here we talk about a preclinical project where we want to accelerate the discovery of a once-monthly amylin molecule. This is in general a difficult challenge. As you try to extend the half-life of amylin, you substantially decrease its potency. That typically can lead to lengthy discovery timelines and costly experiments. So what we do here is we actually deploy an active learning approach, where data from each experimental round is used to train an AI model, which will subsequently propose designs for the next rounds. More importantly, we leverage our internal expertise, decades of expertise, to actually help guide the model to start off with towards the right path for discovery. Now, when I say model, I actually mean an AI system. We have three components to this system. The first is a protein language model, which allows us to introduce novel mutations, which are actually biologically relevant. The second is a suite of predictive models, which will predict properties from these different mutations that the previous model has introduced. These will be potency or other drug-like characteristics which are relevant for formulation and manufacturing. And third, we bring this all together with an optimization engine that will allow to actually look at the properties and make the right trade-offs to actually bring forward more appropriate molecules for experimental testing. So what does this mean? It means on a typical program like this, we would plan for 8 design rounds. We are able to achieve a 500-fold improvement in potency within 3 rounds. Within those 3 rounds, we are able to test approximately 2,000 molecules. And the key here is actually the combination of technology as well as automation and process design to actually allow us to do each experimental cycle rapidly. So each design round here would approximately take 4 weeks. So that's 3 months for the entire campaign, which leads dramatically to actually decreasing the time it takes from the project start to achieving a front-runner molecule. So I have given some examples where we are actually using AI across the R&D continuum to actually help us to make better choices and to enable speed and execution. My focus is to actually take these gains, make them repeatable, and then to look at whichever R&D workflows where we could actually embed and redesign those workflows with AI. With that and the mic, I pass it on to Martin. Thank you very much, Michelle. I've talked about AI, I've talked about speed and execution. You've heard Michelle talk about the same. AI is an enabler. It's a lever to deliver on speed and execution, but it's also a lever to increase our probability of success and increase our science. When we look back and take maybe our first human doses as a proxy for research productivity, as I said, we had three first human doses last year. The average from 2018 to 2025 was 6.5. Maybe not good enough, but when we take the world-class scientists that we have in research and combine it and amplify their abilities with technology and AI, not only for speed, not only for productivity, but also for amplifying the science, we can all of a sudden see that we can bring more differentiated potential first-in-class assets into the clinical space. Already now, as we discussed a couple of times now, at least 10 potential for 2015, 2016, assuming that there will be no attrition for the rest of the year. This is across all of our therapy areas as we speak. Of course, it doesn't stop there. Clear ambition is next year and towards 2030, at least 15 first human doses a year. Beyond 2030, we are going beyond 20. That's a great outlook for what we can do in diabetes and obesity, but it is also a great outlook for moving into new therapy areas. We need to build the cardiovascular, we need to build the liver, but we also need to potentially build the pipeline in other therapy areas. Some of you have asked, are you going to show data from phase I at this Capital Markets Day? It's a super good question. I'm, I think as curious as you are, but the nature of things, given that we had three first human doses last year, and that we only started to see the volume come in this year, I just have to say, all of our trials are ongoing, and I don't have a lot of data to show. Now, I will show data, but it will be from phase II and III. But from phase I, we have to be a little bit patient. I want to provide you some examples of what we are taking into phase I. ALK7 is an example of an asset where we think, well, actually a target, because we have more than one asset to take into phase I. A target where we think that this can make a fundamental difference in how we treat and think about obesity. A lot of you are asking about the quality of the weight loss, muscle preservation. ALK7 is a target that in monotherapy, but potentially also in combination with a GLP-1 or an incretin-based therapy, could drive a substantial weight loss while preserving muscle mass. Super exciting. Early days. Our frontrunner is of one modality. Our successors in ALK7 will be in other modalities. Little bit going back to we can use our different modalities to look at how do we find the best way of approaching this target? How do we make it most convenient for patients? How do we allow Kasper to look at differentiated, how to scale it? In ALK7, as I said, we have a number of assets addressing this specific target. The first going into first human dose this year. A lot of focus on once-monthly. In this example, a once-monthly GLP-1. For us, once-monthly treatment is obviously about convenience, again, meeting the patients where they are. Some will prefer the oral, some will prefer the weekly dosing, but some will also prefer a less frequent monthly dosing. The potential promise of the long half-life is also tolerability. Again, we aim to take our first once-monthly GLP-1 into phase I this year. Given the nature of things, over the next one year, I would say, we actually expect to see at least three or four first human doses with once-monthly GLP-1, because I cannot promise you, obviously, that the first will be the best, and we need to fully understand the half-lives of this. You've seen half-lives from others. They're not necessarily lending themselves fully to a once-monthly therapy. And we obviously want to have not only what we think is good enough, we actually want to have the best. Michelle actually also alluded to we're working on once-monthly amylin biology, and we're potentially also working with other once-monthly targets. So this is part of our armamentarium to address the full patient journey. The last one, some of you have asked some questions about. There are two fundamental needs when we think about how to think holistically for patients. One is in the subcutaneous space. For most proteins and peptides, there is a restriction in Europe, U.S., but certainly also in Africa, in Asia, where thermostability is an issue. If you need to always keep your medicines refrigerated, you cannot do traveling. You don't have a refrigerator. This becomes a problem. We have an asset that has the potential promise of being quite thermostable for the subcutaneous part. The interesting thing about that asset is that it's also quite scalable, and it has the potential for maybe even better bioavailability than what we're used to from our GLP-1 analogs. That would mean that this would be what we call a high-yield oral asset. It would not necessarily be superior to Wegovy or tirzepatide when it comes to weight loss or tolerability. It would probably be on par, but it would be very scalable and quite affordable, again, addressing an unmet need for patients. Equally exciting is ACSL5. You heard me talk about that a couple of times. ACSL5 is ubiquitous throughout the body, but primarily works in the intestine. Through inhibiting ACSL5, we see in animal models a delay of gastric emptying, but also a release of endogenous GLP-1 and PYY, leading to reduced food intake. You can actually see some animal data in the midsection. Two doses tested, leading to a really good double-digit weight loss with the higher dose. The interesting thing is there was no need for dose titration, and there was no apparent side effects. When we added that, which is the two right-hand bars, to semaglutide, we saw a substantial weight loss, and again, without adding to the tolerability profile of what we see with semaglutide in monotherapy. This is a novel target. We have to say it's higher risk, but if this pans out, really, really exciting and huge potential. This is currently in first human dose, and this is one of the assets that we intend to take to the market around the turn of this decade. We'll come back in the diabetes and obesity sections, obviously with some more data, but also to talk about our oral aspirations. It goes without saying, I've said it a couple of times now, we really, really strongly believe of the relevance of peptides in the oral space. They appear to be more efficacious, mimicking probably the endogenous biology better. They appear to be more tolerable, and we can scale them. We can still optimize what we're doing with SNAC. Currently, we are on third generation in the clinical, but in mine and Kasper's collaboration, I think we are closer to generation nine. The interesting thing is we can employ that in obesity, we can employ that in diabetes, but we are also employing that technology, for example, in rare blood disorders with the in weight. Imagine an oral treatment for hemophilia. That would be super exciting. It doesn't stop there. We acknowledge also that in some disease areas, and sometimes a small molecule is more relevant. So we are also working with small molecule. At the end of the day, oral delivery is key to us because this is where we see a true differentiator for Novo Nordisk and a true leadership. Mike alluded to that we want to explore other indications. We have the science. We also have the consumer needs and wants, and we see a true unmet need in some disease area where our biologies, and now I'm not just talking about incretins and amylins, lend themself. Over the next year, we'll initiate at least 8 phase II trials to investigate novel disease areas for Novo Nordisk. We'll start with our well-known assets and our well-known biologies, but through internal innovation and potentially also through acquisitions, we will expand deeper into those therapy areas. We put them into buckets. Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, that could be asthma, that could be inflammatory bowel disease, that could be gout. Pain and addiction. I think most of you have asked about addiction. We believe that we have more than GLP-1 in our armamentarium that would potentially alleviate addiction. And we can think about combination therapies leveraging unique biologies to get to a next level. In the diabetes section, I will come back about the pain. That is then maybe a little bit of a cliffhanger. In women's health, PMOS, vasomotor symptoms, we know that we can do with our current assets, but we also have a legacy in women's health that will allow us to expand deeper into that space. In men's health, we could potentially be looking at male hypogonadism. So expanding from there, these are just examples. As I said, we currently plan at least 8 phase II programs across our different modalities and across different indications, potentially in monotherapy, most likely with combination therapies. Again, we are not doing innovation in isolation. Mike had a longer list. We are doing a lot of acquisition. We are doing a lot of collaborations, sometimes for technology, sometimes for assets. We've actually done some quite exciting acquisitions. The Forma acquisition with the is closest to the market, looking towards regulatory submission later this year. But when we see a strategic fit, when we see an unmet need, but also where we see a strategic gap or scientific gap in our science, that's when we do the collaborations, that's when we do the acquisition. To conclude, R&D, the new R&D organization is set up to deliver at least 5 blockbusters by 2030 with an anticipated annual approval across all of our therapy areas in the coming years. We are rapidly expanding our pipeline, as exemplified our first human doses, but also as exemplified by some of the new disease areas that Mike and I spoke to. Based on a significant change in the organization, but also the way we work, changing our processes, but also leveraging AI and digital technology, we are poised to deliver on all of our ambitions. So with that, I'll invite Michael to come to the stage to conduct. Actually, I'll invite Hum to the stage. No, Michael to the stage. Sorry. That was too much for R&D to grasp. Sorry about that. All right. Thank you very much, Martin. Thank you very much, Mike. We are ready for the first Q&A session. Just a bit of housekeeping. We have a lot of people in the room, and time is tight. If we can stick to one question, including sub-questions, then we will do that. We will take the first question here on the front row. Richard? Hi. Thanks. Richard Vosser from JPMorgan. Maybe you could give us some color on your pricing assumptions within the midterm guidance, how you are thinking about that developing through, and also the pricing for novel agents. Is that in line with, say, oral Wegovy and Wegovy? Just thoughts on pricing embedded in the assumptions. Thanks. Thank you, Richard. Maybe summing up to one question to you, Mike, around pricing dynamics, including novel assets. I think you have to look at this from two different perspectives. Obviously, with semaglutide going LOE, then you will see a step-down price decline like you have seen in some of the LOE markets, I would say. Do not take Canada as an example because that is a very special case, but you have seen what has happened in the other markets, and we will foresee that in 2031, 2032 happening probably more broadly. But we also see that there is plenty of room for innovative pricing, and there will be price differentiations. Orals will not need to be price declined as much as the injectable, as an example. Again, it will come back to different segments of the market, different size population, and different prices attached to them. The overall picture will not be dramatically different than what you have seen over the last number of years, a gradual decline. Great. Thank you very much. Seamus? Thanks. Seamus Fernandez from Guggenheim. Martin, question for you. Mike, you mentioned the potential launch of cagrilintide as a monotherapy. You guys are working on Amylin 355. Can you just help us understand how you see 355 really differentiating from cagrilintide and other DACRAs? Yeah, absolutely. First of all, and I will come back to discuss this in the obesity session, we are super happy what we see with cagrilintide, 12%-15% weight loss and a really tolerable profile. We are also testing higher doses of cagrilintide so that the full weight loss potential of that biology is investigated. It is also important to call out we would not compromise on tolerability. We think that the promise of amylin biology and monotherapy is that it is going to be super tolerable. What we see from 355 so far in phase I is that it has the same, maybe slightly differentiated efficacy, same tolerability, but it can be formulated orally. The big differentiator is that we will have cagrilintide as a subcutaneous offering in that space. But we also need, if we are true to that all of our offerings has to be either subcutaneous or oral, and patients can choose, we want an oral amylin analog and monotherapy. Michael? Thank you. It is Michael Leuchten from Jefferies. Question to Mike. The route to diversification for you, as you had on your slides, is mostly organic with some smaller bolt-ons. But that requires investors to take clinical risk into a fairly meaningful loss of exclusivity. Can you talk about why larger bolt-ons is not part of the strategy? I did not make a reference to the size of the BD deals that we are going to make. I said, as we see it currently, bolt-on is an obvious place to go, even though we have a balance sheet that actually accommodates larger deals when and if needed. I think currently, the way that I see this, when you think about our core, we have a pipeline almost second to none, a very broad one with regards to obesity, and I would even say diabetes. With some of the other ones, where you see a gap you should also expect probably we will be more active in looking in business development acquisitions. But we will not start with the size of the deal. We will start with the quality of the assets and see where that will take us. Great. Thanks, Mike. So strategy unchanged. Down there, Pete? Thanks, Mike. Pete here from BNP. Just one question, Mike, coming back to the pricing question. Just when we think about beyond sema, are we talking about you think that innovation will get price points as of today? Or your ability still to get premium price for innovation? I just want to understand that pricing dynamic a bit better. Thank you. Yeah. You have seen that the prices of GLP-1s have gradually gone down, and in our plans, we actually have that gradual decrease, let's say 10% per year in the planning anchors. There is no major change in that. You also have seen that when there is abrupt movements like the LOE situation, then of course the price comes down more magically, more marginally. But the volume uptakes are still there, and you see again my plea to you is take a look at what has happened in some of the early LOE markets. And you see that the market starts to expand quite a bit. So it is not that one loses it to the generics fully. We have actually done quite decent in number of these markets. And when you look at this in the context of the volume that is still up there for grab, then you start recognizing that, yes, the price might go down by 50%, but there is much more higher volume availability than doubling up to break even and even more so. So that is how you should look at semaglutide. Then there are segments of the populations that will pay premium price for special products that do premium things. And that is where we will try to operate in. Okay, great. There will also be sessions on operations going into the next part of the day, and also around how we segment the market. Sachin, here on the front. Out front. Sachin Jain, Bank of America. Just some more color, if you could, on the composition of the DKK 150 billion pipeline. Perhaps a sense of how much is sema linked, so CagriSema or the pill, how much is obesity, how much is oral? Any color you can give. Then if your target is BD included or excluded from that? The target is excluded from the BD. I mentioned in addition to what we have in the plan and in the current pipelines, you can add to it business development. It also excludes things like explorations of the consumer Rx and some of the other elements. It is real pipeline risk adjusted quite a bit for the future, giving you the numbers that we actually gave. We said that build on top of that, some of the so-called wild cards that we will work incredibly hard on. Risk-adjusted forecast without BD. Next question. We stick to one question, Sachin. Sorry. Simon? Thank you. Simon Baker from Rothschild & Co Redburn. Mike, I wonder if you could just give us a little more color on the in line with peers growth CAGR to 2026 to 2030. I think some people may be interpreting that quite literally as a sort of in line with the straight average. Is it a bit more nuanced and open than that in terms given the range of growth rates for that peer group? It is a more nuanced version of it. I think it was an indication to you on basically a consensus that is moving, frankly speaking, that our plan is to be at least on par with our pharma peers over the period as a compounded annual growth. It is because it has been a question mark in many of your peers and colleagues as approximately what kind of a growth are you talking about? We felt like we should, without being exact, give you an indication. Great. Thank you very much. Karsten will also get back to more on that in his session. Good morning. Florent Cespedes from Oddo BHF. A question for Martin about diversification. Could you elaborate a little bit on your strategy on cardiology, how you intend to differentiate your products versus the well-established ones? Because I saw some indications where we know where there is well-established drugs. Thank you. Yeah, absolutely. It's a really important question because we really want to take differentiated products to the market. The way we think about cardiology is taking a starting point in cardiometabolic diseases. We are not going into any cardiovascular disease. We are going into specific cardiovascular diseases where we still see an unmet need. For better or worse, inflammation-driven ASCVD is still one, and I'll come back to talk about that later in the day. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, also an area of future unmet need where, if successful, you would clearly differentiate, and you would potentially also be first in class. So that is our approach. When we combine that approach with the science that we have, you've seen what we can do when we double down on diabetes and obesity over the last year. In the years to come, we'll double down on cardiovascular and liver disease. I'm quite confident that you will see differentiated molecules come out of our internal innovation. But to Mike's point, sometimes also through acquisitions. Thank you very much, Martin. No doubt that we will be able to also give more color to that in the coming sessions. Carrie? Thank you. Kerry Holford at Berenberg. My question is for you, Martin and Michelle, on AI. You have talked about increasing speed, bringing more assets into the clinic. Is it still too early to conclude that the probability of success is increasing? Will we ultimately just see faster failures as a result of AI? Which in itself I appreciate is not a bad thing, but it is also not ultimately what we need. How confident are you can use AI to generate more positive hits? I will start, and then I will ask Michelle to elaborate. First of all, AI, as we just discussed, it is never better than the data that you put in. We get better and better data, which basically means that in research, but also in development, we can increase our possibility of success. But it is also important that at this point in time, we always apply also the human angle to this. We do not take assets blindfoldedly into the clinic just because AI says this is a good asset. We obviously do the proper testing, both in in vivo pharmacology, but also in our assays. Then we apply our normal scientific approach to combine the best of two worlds. I think that is the winning formula, and so far it looks okay. Let us discuss in a year from now when we have some first human dose data from this year. Yeah, this is working now. What I would say is actually we are seeing the gains is 100% in preclinical. Then obviously it takes a while for that to translate into clinical success. Just to be concrete here, when we are designing molecules, we are trying to encode from the very beginning some of the challenges that we can see in terms of manufacturability and developability. So actually, what we are seeing even from our preclinical tests is that we are able to actually improve our success rate in terms of actually having a developable molecule early. Then naturally, from a biological perspective, it really is about trying to get the context together here. The more context you can bring together and more different that tapestry of data to actually inform our biological understanding, that does translate into a faster progression of our projects, but also the ability for us to actually make much more informed decisions around what biology to pursue. Thank you, Michelle. Much more to come on that later on in the journey on AI. Then the last question from Carsten, we will move into a small break. I will get back to the details. Yes, thank you very much, Mike. A question to one of your comments on the first slides where you say that 2026 and 2027 is about transformation and growth. I was hoping that you could talk a little bit about the growth that you are seeing in 2027, because we are not seeing growth in 2026. Maybe also in relation to the IRA pricing on Ozempic and how that will impact you in 2027, because I think the pricing development has probably been a little bit more aggressive than what you initially anticipated for Ozempic in the U.S. market. Yeah. Thanks, Carsten. Let's take the Ozempic question in a later session around U.S. operations. Then Mike, you can more broadly speak to how we see growth evolving over the time course. I will not guide, as you know, Carsten, for 2027 right now. But we are, of course, keep on improving our commercial execution as you've seen quarter by quarter. We will continue, of course, try and see how we can continue doing that as we go forward. I would say our ending of this year is a good indication of how and where we should be for 2027. When we make our own internal budgets, it starts really with where did December end before we think about January and beyond. So that's the first block. I would say we are incredibly encouraged by our ability to continue growing the Wegovy pill franchise, despite competition having increased their presence and their pressure. We see a decent uptake of the pill. I am incredibly optimistic about CagriSema and the launch of that product, compared to perhaps where the consensus is. That's also, I would say, a building block you need to think about. Then we have some of the minuses and the negatives that you're also very well aware of, and my two colleagues, Jamey and Emil, will get much more deeper into those dialogues when they come on board. All right, great. Thanks, Mike. We're taking a small break now, but just to conclude on this session, clear strategy from Mike, clear ambition to grow the company, clear ambition to expand the pipeline further, and in that journey, also use AI significantly more, which also got the impression from Michelle. So there's a clear strategy with ambition for growth. We go to a break now. It's a rather short break. Also, please remember to visit the booths out there. There's an innovation booth on devices and also on the tablet. Then also there's Team Novo Nordisk out there, the cycling team. Then there will be screens showing when you need to be back in the room, where we then go into the different TA strategies. Thank you very much. [Break] [Presentation] [Presentation] [Presentation] Welcome back. Can you hear me? Can you hear? It is my pleasure to present together with Martin, who could not wait, the obesity and diabetes strategy. We will start with obesity, and after this session, we would like to leave you with three points. First, obesity has driven unprecedented growth in healthcare. It has continued to do so. Second, that obesity market, as you have seen from Mike's presentation, has evolved rapidly, including the trend of consumerization, and we are confident to further expand and shape this market. Third, last but not least, we have the broadest obesity pipeline in this industry to meet diverse needs of these patients. But before I go to the numbers, I know you love numbers, but I would like to invite you to look at these three photographs here. What do you see? I hope you can see on this side at the back. The photo on the left shows an entrance to a boutique hotel. A person, after losing significant weight, could first time go through the single door without the embarrassment to ask the hotel staff to open two doors for her. In the middle, you are very familiar, that is an airline seat, and another person, after avoiding years of air travel, can finally sit comfortably, even lower the tray table, and enjoy a meal. The last photo is about a person who is missing from that ride because he couldn't fit in, and this was a triggering moment for him to decide, as a father, he wanted to participate in experiences of his children growing up. Why I am showing this photo? This is a very small representation of vast consumer experiences we have collected through our ethnographic studies. These studies show that there is a huge diversity of people living with obesity. They have different needs, wants, Martin said a few times, and preferences. Understanding it is very important because this would be our foundational concept, how we look at the obesity market, starting from research and development. Now to the numbers which tell the story of the market. I have been in this industry over 30 years, and I also have never seen a market who has grown so rapidly and still under-penetrated. It is projected that by 2035, there will be over 1.2 billion people living with obesity. Obesity, as we know, is related to comorbidities, about 200 of them. Yet only less than 2% of people are getting treated with GLP-1s, less than 2%. Even if they get on treatment, the average stay time is nine months. Looking at its related to other chronic conditions, but for obesity, they do not stay. The market potential is very simple. It is more obese patients, more on treatment, and stay longer on treatment. It is not about fighting for market share. We do. You will hear from Jamie and Emil, every person at Novo in every market, we are doing every day fighting for market share. Yet the story is about to grow and shape the market, and why we are confident? Because we have done that for 25 years. We were the one who unlocked the potential for obesity. We started with having obesity recognized as chronic disease, and we got selective reimbursement, but also with self-pay e-health, it opened doors to many more patients. We started early on to differentiate obesity beyond weight. We had cardiovascular outcomes trials, then we were the first to launch our first oral semaglutide. With that oral launch, you have seen that fantastic uptake, that patient do prefer orals. Next, we will launch, subject to FDA approval, the first dual mechanism, GLP-1 plus amylin, to address the need for quality of weight loss. As market grow, of course, competition enter. Mike was saying, whether big or small, they enter the market, that require for economy of scale, and Kasper this afternoon will share with you how we have ramped up our economy scale to deliver 10 times more, for instance, on the oral. The journey doesn't stop here. The obesity market is actually evolving from what you see from our corporate video, Lasting Health Starts Now. It's going to evolving to long-term health management, that requires a different view, a different business model, being consumer centric. Mike is saying is actually flying with two engines. So flying two engine means we truly understand the needs. Why HCPs are looking for clinical guidelines, consensus. They want to see more clinical evidences. But consumer, they have different needs and wants and preferences. This bring me to my last slide, actually, where I'll take a bit more time to go through with you. We have done recent, a global consumer research with 37,000 people with obesity, this is what they are telling us. Magnitude of weight loss. How much they lose weight is actually very important as we have realized. Only 32% of them are saying, "We seek the highest possible weight loss for healthy weight management." With our Wegovy high dose and soon, CagriSema, and many more in our asset Martin will show later, we are addressing this need. Equally, almost the same amount of people with obesity say, "We care about quality of weight loss. We care about what we lose is not muscle." 29% are actually concerned about muscle loss. With our amylin-containing assets, we will address this need for bone health and even muscle and bone health, the overall better body composition. Some will say they want to lose as fast as possible to engage and to stay on their treatment, and tolerability remains key. When we ask them, "Why do you not initiate treatment on a obesity medicine?" 38% will say, "I'm afraid of GI side effects." Those stopping treatment, also quoting almost a third of them say, "It's because of the side effects we are stopping." Martin already alluded to, with a drug like cagrilintide or our oral amylin, you have moderate weight loss, but you actually get the tolerability profile. Obesity-related comorbidities is of concern and increase the complexity because 40% of people with obesity, they actually have more than one comorbidity. A quarter of them would say they are concerned about drug interaction because they take other medicines like statins. This actually clearly shows that our Wegovy pill has much better advantage meeting this special preference needs. Convenience and frequency. It clearly has appeared that people with obesity prefer the oral. So more than 50% of them say they prefer the oral, and this we have seen in our huge uptake of Wegovy pill. Martin would show you also, we are already preparing for next generation. We are certainly determined and confident to win in the oral space. Last but not least, affordability has been a big barrier. So more than half of them say they do not initiate costs, or they stop early because of cost. Jamie and Emil in the afternoon would show how we actually, in U.S. and international markets, do everything possible to work with stakeholders to drive reimbursement, but also to introduce innovative payment models. With that, I will invite Martin on stage to demonstrate to you that our pipeline is exactly developed to meet these diverse needs of obese patients. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Hong. Again, I feel that the task is simple for R&D. What we need to deliver, again, is a diversified but also differentiated obesity pipeline. We also have to think about what do the patient want. We have to acknowledge the patient as a decision-maker. It is not just about what they need from a medical perspective, it is what they want from their everyday life. As I said in the previous section, we will do that in obesity, but we will also do that in other diseases. Starting with obesity, we also have to acknowledge that not every drug can do everything that the patient needs or wants. We also have to acknowledge sometimes different patients have different needs. They do not necessarily want the same thing. But if we think about the journey of the magnitude of weight loss, the speed of the weight loss, the tolerability, the safety, the comorbidities, the convenience, the affordability, we are well on the way. We have Wegovy in the market as an oral, as a subcutaneous. Clearly, the oral has addressed a substantial unmet need out there. Or maybe I should rather say a substantial want, because the patient wanted something beyond the subcutaneous. What we do in the next four years, starting in 2027 with CagriSema, is to deliver on that holistic patient journey, making sure that maybe not in a single drug, but across a diversified portfolio, we can cater to every single patient need across everything that Hong described. We will follow up with cagrilintide in monotherapy. Speaking to the other side of the spectrum, the patients with BMI 30, 35, no focus on comorbidities, but they need to lose weight. They would rather do it with convenience and with tolerability. What we have seen with cagrilintide, and I will come back to that, is exactly that profile. 13% weight loss in the first study. Sorry, 12% weight loss in the first study with a tolerability profile that is less than half in terms of side effects than what we see with the GLP-1 based therapy. CagriSema high dose will cater to the segment of patients who really needs to lose very high levels of body weight. Then comes a potential for our next generation GLP-1, cagrilintide high dose, investigating the full weight loss potential of cagrilintide in monotherapy. Still, again, not compromising on tolerability. Then comes senegotide. Seneganside right now seems to have the full package, substantial weight loss, good tolerability profile, subcutaneous and oral, and hopefully also addressing comorbidities. I will come back to that. What we do not have yet is the affordability. I told you about what we in the subcutaneous space call the thermostable GLP-1. But in an oral setting, it could be affordable, scalable GLP-1. So come 2030 and beyond, we see a string of pearls of launches of differentiated products that caters to different patient needs. It starts with CagriSema. We believe still, and we are still excited about CagriSema. We believe that this will make a substantial difference to patients out there. CagriSema, as you know, is the unique combination of two biologies. It is first in class, GLP-1 plus amylin biology. Building on what semaglutide can do, we know that semaglutide can give up to 20% of weight loss. We know that it has a really, really strong benefit, basically second to none, on cardiovascular, on liver. Specifically in the cardiovascular space, it is the only obesity medication with approved cardiovascular reduction label, and the same thing for MASH. We have brought across diabetes and obesity patient experience, sorry, and physician experience, 50 million patients' lives to talk about the safety profile of what semaglutide can do. When we then combine it with a biology that acts complementary in the brain, we can see additivity on the weight loss. At this point in time, we have to talk about the 23% that we saw in REDEFINE 1. As I will talk to you in just a minute, we still believe there is more potential. We will not know until we have seen REDEFINE 11. But what semaglutide also showed is that one in five of patients lost more than 30%. The women lost more than 25%. But most importantly, the REDEFINE program so far has taught us about the individualization of treatment. If we are serious about not all patients respond in the same way to the same treatment, not everyone have the same needs in terms of magnitude of weight loss, speed of weight loss, tolerability to side effects, and so on. Then CagriSema or the combination of the GLP-1 and amylin biology seems to offer something special. I will come back to talk about that when I talk about senagantide as well. On top of that, we have seen that despite of the weight loss, 23% weight loss has a doubling in terms of improved physical function, and there is a preserved muscle strength that we see during the REDEFINE program. Now, we have not really shown with imaging and so on what the amylin biology can do. But this is what we want to investigate next. I just want to talk a little bit about individualization of treatment. Now, we conducted REDEFINE 9. That is a reasonably small study investigating patients on CagriSema 1 milligram, 1.7 milligram, and placebo. Here I show the 1 milligram data. Clearly, in this study, patients going to 1 milligram, and most of them actually did go to 1 milligram, show a substantial 21% weight loss. Speaking to maybe you do not have to go to the full dose and still accrue true benefits for the patients. Reasonably low withdrawal rate compared to that of placebo, 5%. In the REDEFINE 9 protocol, we allowed for flexible dosing. This speaks to the importance of individualization, but it also speaks to the power of the CagriSema biology. I will come back to that also in the diabetes section, showing you a little bit of more data. This clearly has bearing on what the amylin and the GLP-1 biology can do together. Right now, we are waiting for regulatory approval. We expect to see that in Q4 of this year. We are waiting for the REDEFINE 11 data to read out in Q1 of next year, so we have them around the time of launch in the U.S. Then we expect to see the readout of the CagriSema high dose during the course of 2028. We are not done with the CagriSema journey. We also want to build on what do we think amylin biology can do when it comes to the healthy weight loss, the quality of the weight loss. So we are conducting the RASMUSS study, where we are going deep on looking at muscle biology in terms of imaging, biopsies, biomarkers, but also functional testing. Then we conduct the REDEFINE 8 trial, a reasonably long trial, two years, where we will look at full body composition and muscle strength. The thing that we do not talk a lot about is bone. For us, bone is an important part of the qualitative weight loss, and particularly if women in the post-menopausal space start to lose weight. There is a risk of they also then decrease their estrogen levels, which then leads to, because fat produces estrogen, but that can lead to osteopenia, potentially osteoporosis. What if there is something about bone preservation in the amylin biology? We are investigating that in the Ramboll study specifically. We are taking it to a next level, where we look at REDEFINE 3 and actually look at fracture risk to assess what does a weight loss with CagriSema actually do. I talked a lot about cagrilintide in monotherapy. We do believe that there is a huge segment of patients that have obesity, let's say BMI between 30 and 35, 37, that needs to lose weight, but are not focused on comorbidities. Having that potential for, let's say, at least to start with, a 12% weight loss, again, we are testing higher doses of cagrilintide in monotherapy, but with a very low risk of side effects. You can see the discontinuation rate from REDEFINE 1, 2.6%. It was comparable to that of placebo. More than halving in gastrointestinal side effects, and only a third of vomiting as compared to GLP-1 therapies. This is a tolerable, convenient offering that will cater to a lot of patients, and we will see the potential of launching that in 2028, and follow up then with a higher dose CagriSema a year after that. On the other side of that coin is the bigger weight losses. You have seen these data before. 24% weight loss with subcutaneous in 36 week, 13% weight loss in only 12 weeks with the oral offering. This speaks to the power of the biology again. This speaks to the potential of what this can do, and obviously we are doing the phase III program to look at the weight loss potential, employing all the learnings, good and bad, that we have taken from CagriSema. We are also looking at comorbidities, sleep apnea, knee osteoarthritis, and specifically because we are building on two biologies that, at least on the biomarker side, have shown tremendous CV benefit with a more profound blood pressure lowering, lipid lowering, inflammation lowering than we see with GLP-1s alone. We are also very focused on establish the cardiovascular benefit of senegotide. We are doing two outcomes trial, one for conventional CVMA, one for heart failure, specifically heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction. We discussed in the previous session, it is a huge unmet need. We have seen with semaglutide what semaglutide can do. We want to investigate what can senegotide do in this space. We also want to deliver senegotide as a subcutaneous and as an oral, therefore, we are also doing a MACE 9. Our original intent was to bring the oral later to the market. Now we want to do it simultaneously. Therefore, a MACE 9 is carrying the exposure for all, and then we intend to bridge all of the subcutaneous data, the sleep apnea data, the cardiovascular data, the heart failure data into the oral label. We expect to see simultaneous approval, simultaneous launch with similar labels, speaking to the benefits of what senegotide can do. I have been asked a couple of times around the safety profile of senegotide. Some of you were concerned about what you saw in phase I. It is important to remember that phase I, first of all, captures everything that the patient reports. Second of all, there are some technicalities in terms of which patients are allowed to continue a study, and specifically in the senegotide studies, patients who lost so much weight that they did not want to continue to the next dose were excluded from the study. That is just a technicality. They did not necessarily leave because of side effects. Where we do the modeling, we see a safety and tolerability profile similar to that of CagriSema. I will just remind you, CagriSema is comparable to that of Wegovy. We can get to these high weight loss potentials with hopefully a tolerability profile that is similar to that of Wegovy, similar to that of CagriSema. To really safeguard that, we not only do some titration, and we do it in a way that caters to individual patient needs, but we also intend to individualize the treatment. This is exemplified with the doses that you see on the lower right-hand side. For oral senegotide, we intend to have five maintenance doses approved, catering to the different patient needs. That speaks to magnitude of weight loss, speed of weight loss, and potentially also how to maintain weight loss once accrued. UBT251 is the next kid on the block. You have seen the data, you have heard us talk about it with a lot of enthusiasm. In a reasonably short 24-week study in China and in Chinese subjects, around 20% weight loss, which is when we try to do the modeling, transcribed into a potential for weight loss in phase III that is comparable to other trial agonists. But the safety and tolerability profile of UBT251 seems to be quite differentiated. We had very little withdrawals and very few side effects reported. That can be caused either because the drug is really, really good, which is obviously our aspiration, could also be because of study technicalities. In order to rule out any doubt, we are currently doing a phase II study with UBT251, but the aspiration is best-in-class weight loss, best-in-class tolerability, and obviously moving into comorbidities. You all know that glucagon biology really caters to, for example, MASH. The profound weight loss really caters to sleep apnea, so we intend to pursue those indications as well. A little bit I have talked about it, so I will do it fast on the oral aspirations. In obesity, we see oral as a true driver of preference from the patient side, and if we can deliver what they want from an efficacy, from a tolerability, from an affordability perspective, which we can if we materialize our oral portfolio, then we are really catering to the patient needs. I talked about oral semaglutide. This is where we see the big weight loss still with a tolerable profile, but also with some side effects. I talked about Amylin 355, tremendous potential, really good double-digit weight loss, very good tolerability profile, and in an oral setting. Then slightly more risky, but certainly very, very exciting, ACSL5 inhibition, that at least in the animal models, again, leads to very profound double-digit weight loss without need of titration, without any clear tolerability issues, and with the potential of combining that with our incretin-based portfolio. All of these assets we intend to have on the market around the turn of this decade. It does not stop there. Without going into too much details, we also, as we discussed, have the oral high yield GLP-1 catering to patients' affordability, and then we have continuous efforts to improve our SNAC technology, but also looking at other modalities for oral delivery. We intend to lead the oral space across efficacy, across tolerability, across convenience, and across affordability. But we also intend to lead in the subcutaneous space. Here, obviously, the pipeline is deeper. Here we are talking about what you have already seen, CagriSema, cagrilintide, semaglutide, Amylin 355. We will not spend so much time discussing the triple today. Also really, really exciting, both from a weight loss perspective, potentially also from a tolerability perspective. We have a couple of amylins in phase I. We have what we call next generation GLP-1. We have a recombinant GLP-1. We have the potential of a once-monthly GLP-1, a thermostable GLP-1, and then some assets that we are not disclosing going into phase I over the next couple of months. This is super exciting, and this should really cater to our ambition level. We want the industry-leading oral and injectable portfolio in the obesity space, delivering on at least one multi-blockbuster obesity launch year on year towards 2030 and obviously beyond. We have clear and differentiated assets in CagriSema, in semaglutide, in cagrilintide, and UBT251, and that potential for differentiation leads to a potential of also leading the subcutaneous space, but specifically also the oral space in years to come. In the last year, we have seen a significant step up in our early clinical efforts, and while business development is maybe not at the forefront of what we do in obesity, we are not ruling out that we will do acquisition also in obesity, if the right fit is there. So with that, I will invite Hong back to talk about diabetes. Thanks, Martin. Diabetes is where Novo started. It has been a heart of our DNA, so to say, for the last 100 years. As you have seen from the new purpose and core strategy, it remains central. This is an area we are clearly confident we are going to further lead because we combine the scientific leadership, clinical development excellence, scale in manufacturing, and commercialization. Above all, it is also our responsibility to stay there. You see now the prevalence of diabetes, and it is projected to grow to over 850 million by 2050. It means adding 10 million every year. You know the population in Greater London? Most of you are from London. I checked it up. It is less than 9 million. Actually, we are adding more than the population of London, people living with diabetes. That is a huge, huge unmet need we have. Despite all the therapeutic progress we made, actually, there is still unmet need in this area, because more than half of people living with diabetes, they do not achieve their HbA1c target. In U.S., 58% of them suffer from obesity. That consequence is very serious because diabetes is associated with reduced life expectancy for about 5 years for type 2 diabetes and 10 years for type 1. Just in 2024, 3.4 million patients died from diabetes. This is actually the reason why we feel, as leader in diabetes, it is our responsibility, but also opportunity to remain in this field and continue to Alhemo. Now talk about the opportunities in terms of the market. Despite Ozempic being one of the best-known brand in this industry, actually, the GLP-1 usage is less than 7%. For your context, SGLT2 inhibitors have about 17%, and the traditional antidiabetic oral medicines, predominantly metformin, have 33%. I am not suggesting that these treatments are comparable, yet it illustrate the headroom we have if GLP-1 will be used earlier and if access can be expanded. It is important that it starts early. I would like to draw attention to the disease journey. Those newly diagnosed, some of them would have no symptom or limited symptom, but then soon they have raising glucose level, weight gain, and also cardiovascular risks. There are some, we call them the fast progressers. They will actually progress very fast beyond first-line therapy. Actually, my father has diabetes. When he was diagnosed, he was very few months on metformin, then he had put on insulin. Then you have to look at the other end of the spectrum, those advanced in disease and those elderly and frail, because they will have complications with comorbidities. Oral therapies will support to overcome the barriers of treatment to bring diabetic patients earlier on GLP-1. More assets we have on our pipeline would actually support the broader adoption also in the later stage of diabetes. Talking about oral therapies, actually, we have one, which is Ozempic pill or Rybelsus. It is the world's first oral GLP-1 agonist approved type 2 diabetes. As you see from the PIONEER PLUS trial, there is a dose-dependent efficacy both on HbA1c and weight. We have already got approval in Europe for our Ozempic 25 milligram, and we are waiting U.S. approval soon. It was launched in 47 countries under the brand name Rybelsus. And Jamie will share with you later, we actually this year have rebranded to Ozempic pill. There are very interesting insight from that rebranding. Not only prescription increase, but really standing out was that 60% of new-to-brand prescription are actually from patients who are naïve to GLP-1. This is a very, very important strategic insight because it really illustrate that how a known brand combined with convenience could drive more patients in diabetes also towards GLP-1. So I am sure Ed and Jamie will share more insights from that. We talk a lot about, when we talk about obesity, about consumerization, about needs and wants, and what about diabetic patients? But actually, they are also consumers because there is overlap between diabetes and obesity, but also they do have needs and want we have seen. We have seen, of course, HbA1c stays core of the treatment target, but yet weight loss become very important. When you have attended ADA, you probably see more sessions on obesity than on diabetes. But yet more attention is also towards other diabetes-related comorbidities. And then people with diabetes also looking for tolerability and convenience. And eventually they would like to see something which is disease modifying. They want to see new mode of actions. And you will see later on from Martin, this is actually how we build our pipeline. But before Martin go to the long term, let me share what we have in the near term. So of course, near term is about fighting for the volume, the sema volume. But I would also like to draw your attention to two of our recent launches. One is Awiqli. You actually see the Awiqli pen also outside. Awiqli is our Awiqli insulin, which break down the treatment barrier, bring convenience. And we have Kyinsu, which is combining semaglutide with Awiqli insulin, combining glycemic control, weight loss, and convenience. So Martin would share with you what we have in our pipeline. But what I want to leave with you is also, like obesity, is not one single disease, one single patient journey. It is really about us to meeting the diverse needs along the patient journey and truly become partner of life. And for being part of life, it starts of bringing innovative medicines. So Martin, what do we have in the pipeline? Thank you. Thank you very much, Hong. We have been in diabetes for 100 years, and I think Hong very nicely illustrates that the unmet need in type 2 diabetes, but certainly also in type 1 diabetes, are still very substantial. People are still dying from comorbidities to diabetes. People are still in poor glycemic control. That calls for more innovation. So our first shot on goal in the incretin space is obviously CagriSema. We talked about it before. CagriSema builds on two unique biologies. One is obviously being semaglutide. And again, semaglutide, super good diabetes drug, good glycemic control, good weight loss. But uniquely to semaglutide, 26% risk reduction when it comes to cardiovascular events, 24% reduction in kidney-related events. That magnitude is not seen with other GLP-1s. And again, we have a very robust safety database to talk about the safety and the tolerability of semaglutide. When we combine that with cagrilintide, the amylin biology, we actually get a superior, depending on the study, 1.8-2.3 percentage point reduction in HbA1c. We get a substantial weight loss, around 15%. I will just remind you, we are all discussing these 20%+ weight losses. These are in patients that do not have diabetes. Diabetes patients seem to be a little bit resistant to weight loss. So 15% is close to best in class when it comes to weight loss. When we think about it, around 43% gets more than 15% weight loss in this space. So cagrilintide comes with offerings, again, that talks to really strong glycemic control, really good weight loss, but also potentially some of the added benefits that we discussed in the obesity section. I want to go back to the individualization. It is very clear on the market, on our products, but also our competitor products. Not every patient decides to go to the highest dose. When we talk about glycemic control, when we talk about weight loss, we talk about some numbers, but they are reflecting of the highest dose. That is obviously also sometimes associated with some side effects. A lot of patients decide to go to lower doses because it caters to their needs. In fact, for our competitor, their lowest approved dose is the most prevalently used dose. So we decided to conduct a study comparing CagriSema to our competitor drug using the lowest intended dose. In the space of CagriSema, that is 1 milligram, and the space of the competitor, it is 5 milligrams, the most used dose in the market. That is clinically relevant. That is relevant from a real-world perspective. REIMAGINE 5 was a 1,000-patient study randomized equally to either CagriSema or the competitor drug, as I said, 1 milligram versus 5 milligrams. In this study, we saw a superior weight loss with CagriSema, around 12.5%, versus 9% for the competitor drug, with exactly the same level of glycemic control. This is obviously super exciting. We really like this data also because they are truly reflective of what happens for the majority of patients in the real world. For CagriSema in type 2 diabetes, before we can do the regulatory submission, we have to have the REDEFINE 3 data. REDEFINE 3 will read out in second half of next year, which basically also means that we will do the regulatory submission for type 2 diabetes in second half of next year, expecting a launch for type 2 diabetes in 2028. Just like in obesity, we are also investigating higher doses of CagriSema in the space of diabetes. It does not stop there. You have heard us talk about comorbidities, and we are super happy with what semaglutide, potentially also CagriSema, can do in the space of cardiovascular disease and other comorbidities. Where no one has really gone to do innovation in many years are in some of the other areas of comorbidities. 25% of patients with type 2 diabetes are suffering from neuropathic pain. If you know anyone with type 2 diabetes who have neuropathic pain, you also know this is a debilitating disease or debilitating condition. 20% of these are on opioids to manage their pain. Most of them are on gabapentinoids. This is bad. I have to give a little bit of a disclaimer. There is a mistake in my slide, and we did not have time to correct it. We did conduct a small phase II study, 70 patients in each treatment arm, comparing the effect of CagriSema to placebo on neuropathic pain, quality of life, and sleep quality. In that study, we saw a superior and clinically relevant reduction in neuropathic pain with CagriSema. I will just give you the comparison. Typically, regulators say around 1 point, and this is where, by the way, there is a mistake in my slide. It is not percent, it is just points on a scale going from 0 to 10. So it is not a 2% decrease, it is a 2.4 point decrease. That being said, around 1 point reduction is clinically relevant from a regulatory perspective. The gabapentinoids are showing typically 0.5 to 1 point benefit. CagriSema does 2.4, placebo-adjusted 1.2. This is not only clinically relevant, it is also obviously statistically significant in a space where there is really not a lot of innovation for patients with diabetes. On top of that, we saw improved quality of life. We saw improved sleep quality. I am not the expert in this, so we had to talk to some KOLs about how important this is. Just quoting one of the KOLs, this is a potential game changer in the space of diabetes because no innovation has come into this space. Goes without saying, we will initiate phase III trials for our GLP-1 amylin-based portfolio already this year to make sure that potentially for CagriSema, potentially for senagotide, potentially for follow-on compounds. This is part of the differentiator that we can show in type 2 diabetes on top of the good glycemic control, on top of the really good weight loss, on top of the other comorbidities. Speaking of senagotide, just want to mention it. This is really an exciting offering. You remember the data I showed you in the previous session. Here we show phase II data for type 2 diabetes, 36 week, 15% weight reduction, or 14.6% weight reduction. Really good HbA1c lowering as well, and a tolerability profile that we believe will be comparable to that of Wegovy and CagriSema. We are doing the AMBITION program again, and importantly as a subcutaneous, but also as an oral offering. In the space of diabetes, recent years has called a lot of attention on incretin-based therapies. I do not think that is wrong. I actually think that is good. We have just shown with CagriSema and potentially also with senagotide and certainly with Ozempic what we can do. But there is still an unmet need. There is still an unmet need in the early stages of type 2 diabetes. There is still an unmet need in type 1 diabetes. There is still an unmet need in people who need insulin. Despite the advent of GLP-1 therapies, insulin is still very much in fashion from a volume perspective, which also means there is value to be had there. So we are building a pipeline that attempts to cater to that. We are still going for the best incretin-based therapies, starting with CagriSema, following on with senagotide, potentially UBT251 and our triple. But we are also taking novel targets into the space of diabetes. Now in this case, these are from a modality perspective, siRNA based, addressing new targets, looking at potential for better insulin sensitivity, potential for better beta cell preservation. We are not disclosing everything, but some of the targets are already publicly available, so they are shown. There are a few targets that we are not disclosing. Just to say, based on the unmet need, based on the growth of diabetes, there is huge value potential in diabetes still, and we intend to lead that. On the other side of the disease spectrum, there is still need for insulin innovation. We are still progressing our glucose-sensitive insulin portfolio. This is difficult. You have heard us talk about that for a couple of years, and I cannot promise you that we will get there at a specific time point, but I can say that right now things are looking reasonably good. We also know that we can do oral insulin delivery, again, addressing an unmet need. We have done that before, actually showing that in phase II, oral insulin was as good as subcutaneous insulin for people with type 2 diabetes. From a bioavailability perspective, from a manufacturing perspective, this is actually feasible. So we intend to take oral insulin also into the development space. Across the board, the idea is that we want to address diabetes as a still unmet need. Despite all of the innovation that we have brought into diabetes, there is still a tremendous unmet need in type 2 diabetes and type 1 diabetes. We have already now differentiated profiles with CagriSema and with semaglutide, but we also intend to take our early pipeline to the next level in the early stages of type 2 diabetes, but also in the insulin-dependent diabetes. This is the only way that we can serve our patients, and taking the approach that Hong also alluded to of going beyond just the need, but also the wants from the patients. With that, I would invite Hong and Michael up for Q&A. Great. Thank you, Martin. Thank you, Hong. Same rules as before for the Q&A, so please go to one question each, and then also please state your name and organization. Michael Leuchten? Thank you. It is Michael Leuchten from Jefferies. Can you just go back to REDEFINE 9, the 1 milligram, 1 milligram dose? You did mention the 1.7 milligram in that, if you could comment to that, and if the right dose for CagriSema is really the lowest one, what does that tell us for amycretin semaglutide? Specifically on the 1.7, it was actually in the footer of the slide. It gave in that study, which was a reasonably small study, approximately the same weight loss as the 1 milligram. But a little bit to what we discussed before, the 1.7 milligram was maybe not titrated in the optimal way. Therefore, we see these data also when looking at what we saw in diabetes as a testament to if you titrate the higher doses in the right way, there is further potential for weight loss, potentially also for glycemic control with the CagriSema. We will know when we see REDEFINE 11. Great. Thanks, Martin. That was the second part of the question. Second part of the question, Michael Leuchten? Just what are the learnings for the amycretin dose selection? That is specifically what I mentioned for the oral. We are doing the same thing for the subcutaneous. We want to have more than one maintenance dose approved. Specifically, for example, for the oral, we are going for five maintenance doses so patients can actually choose. Most of them would be going for that maybe more than 20% weight loss, but they would need maybe different doses to achieve their weight loss, and therefore also balancing the speed of the weight loss and the tolerability side of things. Great. In the back down there. Right, thanks. It is Graham Parry from Citi. Could you run us through what you expect to have in terms of the cardiovascular and MASH data and benefits from semaglutide on the CagriSema label at launch? On REDEFINE 11, I think you indicated the data would be available around the time of launch. Is that data you would also expect to get on label over time? Thank you. Yeah. It is a good question on the cardiovascular and the MASH data. This is a dialogue with the regulatory authorities. Obviously, we are tending to get the semaglutide data into the label. There is some precedence for that, but that is an ongoing dialogue with the authorities, and we cannot guarantee that. The good thing is we will see the readout of REDEFINE 3 already next year, and that obviously has the clear intent of going into the label as soon as possible if we do not get the semaglutide data mentioned in the first label. Same thing for REDEFINE 11. The intent is to negotiate with the regulators when we have the data to get the data represented in the label. Very clear. Down there, Chris. Thank you. Thibaud Boutroux, Morgan Stanley. Just a question similarly on CagriSema label. You mentioned you highlighted some of the data, the 1 milligram and the head-to-head with the 5 milligram tirzepatide. To what extent can you highlight this in the label and promote it to physician? How can you avoid the overall message of REDEFINE 4 and REIMAGINE 4 where CagriSema missed the non-inferiority in weight loss in HbA1c reduction? Basically, how can you highlight the data that you mentioned versus the headline results of the studies? Martin, first on the data and maybe also Hong a bit on- The good thing about REIMAGINE 5 is that it is a reasonably large 500-patient study. It is well-controlled, and therefore we have a good assumption that that will enter the label, and therefore we will have the ability to talk about superiority in that space. Again, it is a dialogue with the regulators, and we will have to wait and see. In terms of launching, we will be launching hopefully early next year, CagriSema obesity first and 2 years later in diabetes. I have shown that for diabetic patients, they care about weight loss. I think in that trial, we have shown we are a little bit less on HbA1c, but better on weight loss. By then, we will also have more data, including the cardiovascular outcomes data. Great. Thank you, Hong. The front here. Thank you. James Gordon from Barclays. One question was just how much of the 2030 target does hinge on zenagamtide's success? Could you still get there in terms of growing at an industry and growth rate without zenagamtide? Do you think there are other assets, even if zenagamtide wasn't successful, that you would still be able to get there? The other one was just a clarification. I think it was slide seven of Martin's presentation. It looked like a 2029 launch for the next generation GLP-1. I think that is only just starting the phase I now, so that seems like quite fast timelines. How would you bring it to market so quickly, and can you elaborate on the differentiation from that asset, please? So maybe Martin, a bit on the overall importance of and how we focus on zenagamtide. So first on that, please. Yeah, absolutely. First of all, we do not want to be a one-trick pony for too long. Therefore, having the diversified pipeline that will de-risk the overall portfolio is the approach that we take. Obviously, with senagotide, we have phase I, we have phase II. So from a risk perspective, that is reasonably de-risked. There are never guarantees, but the important thing is to build assets around that that will de-risk the entire portfolio. The other question? That was on slide 7 around the speed to market for new assets. Yeah. One of my hobby horses. Obviously, with better processes, with the employment of digital tools and AI, we can actually speed up our development timelines quite substantially. We have actually done it a couple of times, and it cannot be done in isolation either. I have to work very closely with Kasper, and Kasper will come back and talk to that. The ambition levels that we have for speed, but also for volume of the pipeline, really takes a lot from an R&D perspective, but also from a CMC perspective, and this has to come together. Now, specifically for what I call those lower-risk assets like a GLP-1, we believe that it is somewhat de-risked, and therefore, we do intend to take some of our incretin-based therapies to the market around the time of 2030, even though they are still only in phase I. Great. Speeding up and also broadening the pipeline. Over there. Yes. Johan Ehres, SP1 Markets. A question on oral obesity. You showed on one slide that affordability, top, convenience, top, and specifically then for patients who has been on oral obesity for a while, what about the challenge then about affordability to actually make them sticky, to keep on weight management phase of it? Hong, a bit on the market segmentation and also including affordability. Yeah. For the oral, we do not have enough time to look at the stay time, obviously, right? But I think later on in the afternoon, you will hear from Jamey. We are having different models, including subscription model in order to increase the stay time. And of course, in the long term, Martin is working really hard also, and Kasper too, on more scalability and economies of scale. But currently, I would say people dropping oral, it is too early to tell we are dropping. In the data I would talk about dropping is mostly from the injectable data. Naresh? Sorry, Rajesh. Sorry. Thanks for the new name. Rajesh Kumar from HSBC. Thanks for showing the CagriSema comparison with tirzepatide. The dose you have picked, and which you probably imagine to be the one which people might go for maintenance, the weight loss profile is not very different from last generation Wegovy, right? So when you are thinking about pricing in your future forecast for 150 billion DKK, have you considered what sort of premium your pipeline assets, which are all fantastic from the looks of it, can command over a generic Wegovy? I know there are two questions on pricing before this, and you said the decline, but you did not tell the starting point. We are very curious what starting point have you assumed for pricing? So maybe Martin, a bit on the data first. Yeah. Hong, a bit on positioning again. Absolutely. So 12.5% weight loss with our low-dose CagriSema dose is actually on par or slightly better than what is currently out there. Which also presumably means when you go to 1.7, 2.4, again, using the right titration and the more individualized titration, that could lead to even bigger weight losses. We do believe that already at the low dose, CagriSema is differentiated. Specifically also when we are thinking, for example, neuropathic pain and other benefits on comorbidities. To the pricing questions, I am super happy to leave that to Hong. Yeah. I will not comment on price, but I comment why I see differentiate. First of all, with 23% weight loss, it is not the same like Wegovy. Then also we have, if you look at the detail, actually most of users are women, and women get 25%, and one-fifth of them actually get 30%. Then you have the amylin biology with the already proven, where we have patient-report outcomes, the twice as better physical function, and hopefully we have more data, RASMUSSEN and RAMBO data to prove on bone, on muscle. When I talk to HCPs even, they are very excited about to see the new mechanism. But I will not steal the thunder from the U.S. team presenting how we are going to position CagriSema. Great. Thanks, Hong. We are concluding here, but clearly, as you say, strong differentiation of CagriSema. Lots of segmentation to be done in the market, both across obesity and diabetes. Then we are concluding this session. There is going to be a small video, and then we are going into the subsequent sessions on blood endocrine and also cardiovascular and liver. [Presentation] [Presentation] [Presentation] [Presentation] Good morning, everyone. My name is Habib Benassour, and I am leading the Blood and Endocrine Disorder unit in Novo Nordisk. I hope I will leave you with three messages in mind at the end of this session. One, that we are present in the right disease area and indication based on unmet need and potential for market growth. Second, that Novo Nordisk has the ability to win in those diseases through bringing new standard of care. Finally, linking it back to Mike's statement about blood and endocrine being a new engine of growth through blockbuster launches, this therapeutical unit will significantly contribute for the Novo Nordisk growth in the mid and long term. The story of blood and endocrine is a story of expansion, is a story of leadership, and a story of growth guided by four principles. First of all, we look at disease indication with significant unmet need and potential for market growth. Then to fix those unmet need, we aim at nothing else than new standard of care and/or blockbuster potential. We consider a third principles, which is, do we, as Novo Nordisk, have the ability to win in those disease area based on our expertise in R&D and also biology? How can we leverage our current network legacy from the rare disease through the HCP and through the patient advocacy? By doing this right, we managed to be in a place today where we have three blockbuster potential launch, two coming very soon. Frehemgo in hemophilia, etavopivat in sickle cell disease, and later on, zaltinibar in the complement-mediated space, hemato-renal. On the backbone of an already successful business running and growing mainly today through the launch of Sogroya. Again, we believe by doing this right, as you can see here, the blood and endocrine disorders will grow more than 50% between 2026 and 2030. That is the ambition. Mike keeps telling me that this is at least 50%. He would not worry if we do much more. Very few words about all those four therapeutical area we are present in. As you heard it before, our legacy is in hemophilia, was in hemophilia, and the endocrine space. Then we expanded from the hemophilia market or disease. Hemophilia will be roughly around more than $19 billion market in 2032, driven by innovation in a switch market. From this area, we expanded into hemoglobinopathy, sickle cell disease. Why? Because it is also hematology. Because the patient care model is very similar to hemophilia, is sickle cell disease treatment center, quite centralized and concentrated. And if you look at the U.S., there is an overlap in term of geo-localization of those sickle cell disease treatment center with the hemophilia treatment center, actually a little bit more than 60% overlap. Sickle cell disease or hemoglobinopathy today is probably one of the most underserved therapeutical area I have been exposed to. It is 10 million patients. Cannot call it rare. The estimated market of around $4 billion in 2032 dollars actually reflect decades of lack of innovation. It reflects as well the recent failures and setbacks we have seen in that field. So we expect this, again, to move forward at an accelerated level. Then our hemato-renal, where we aim at building a leading portfolio. Actually, that is not a new disease area for us. We already had some complement inhibitor assets in our early pipeline, as well as we had also in hemoglobinopathy. And in the hemato-renal space, we will talk a bit about the hematology again, with diseases like PNH, but also take the opportunity to expand into a very dynamic and also growing market in the renal part of that space. But I cannot mention all this and not spend a little bit of time speaking about the endocrine piece and our growth hormone portfolio. The market is estimated to be more than $3 billion in 2032, and here our ambition is really to maximize through lifecycle management and expansion into other indication with Sogroya®. And why I am saying that is because the story we have and the success we have in the endocrine space is equal to none. This is what happens when you tick all the boxes right. We have a portfolio in both one asset, Norditropin® in the short-acting, Sogroya® in the long-acting. We are leading in both segments, and we are growing the new class, which is the long-acting. We have done a fantastic job across the value chain to not stop at the growth hormone disorder, but we want to the non-GHD space as well and look at the lifecycle management of Sogroya® beyond the GHD. Actually, we had just last week, CHMP positive opinion for the ISS, which is a first for that therapeutical class. So this is a perfect example of what we do or are able to do in blood and endocrine and in Novo Nordisk from having a portfolio rightly co-positioned, leading in all the segment while pushing for the most growing one and having a very strong lifecycle management behind it. Now, if I look at hemophilia, which is our legacy and the proper rare disease here within the blood and endocrine, Novo Nordisk has a unique portfolio in that space. Why? Because we do cover all patient segment and also all indication and also all country archetype or market archetype from replacement factor to new non-factor therapy. Being able to address an individualized approach for the patients so far, but as well address all kind of countries archetype. When you look at hemophilia A, there is still an unmet need despite the recent innovation. Patients are still bleeding under current standard of care, but most importantly, talking with patients and listening to this community, you realize that they still and always compromise between the need of efficacy and feeling covered and protected from bleeding, and the burden of treatment. That, we believe, is something that we have to fix, because no patient should be living under burden of treatment just for the sake of feeling secured and safe from bleeding. Can we do it? We absolutely can do it. What I am sharing here with you is the latest data that we have from our FRONTIER program with the denecimig FREHEMGO. What you see here is that we have a consistent efficacy data across all dosing regimen once weekly, every 2 weeks, once monthly, across both pediatric and adult/adolescent population, with zero bleeds of approximately 70% in the adult and adolescent population, and up to 90%-ish in the pediatric indication. I want just to specify here that I am talking about overall bleed, overall treated bleed. That includes spontaneous and traumatic bleed. If I was to talk only about spontaneous bleed, this will be respectively almost 90% and 97% zero bleed. More importantly, and very interestingly, we have the FRONTIER 5 data, which is a switch study from emicizumab to FREHEMGO, and we have looked at various parameters. One of them is a preferred injection pen versus emicizumab device, and also the overall ease of use evaluated by the patients. You can see here the results. I am sure many politicians would love to see those kind of results in their polls. It is almost unanimous. We have 97% device preference for FREHEMGO compared to emicizumab. Making this a direct switch, again, in a market which is mainly a switch market, this direct switch quite seamless and smooth. All in all, we believe that FREHEMGO has the best value proposition to patients, starting with the efficacy. You heard it previously, maybe a few, not that a long time ago from Martin about the potency that is higher than emicizumab. We also today know through the FRONTIER 5 data that after a switch from emicizumab, FREHEMGO takes the thrombin generation value into normal range, even through the once monthly. Thrombin generation is the marker that is used by hematologists to follow on their hemophilia patients. This has translated into very robust, consistent clinical data across population, pediatric, adolescent, adult, and also across all those regimen, making FREHEMGO the first truly once-monthly optionality for hemophilia A patients. Also, thanks to the preferred administration and the preferred device. Actually, the preferred administration and device also to be linked to the potency since it does not matter if it is once weekly, every 2 weeks or even once monthly, it is 0.8 milliliter injection volume across all those in regimen, making this a big difference today. Again, we had a busy week last week, not only with Sogroya®, but we had CHMP positive opinion for FREHEMGO. We are also positively surprised to have a first global approval by Saudi coming as well. We will continue looking forward for additional launches, and we are also looking forward for the FDA response as well, as you can imagine. Talking about sickle cell disease, this is a global disease. Around 8.5 million sickle cell disease patients around the world, highly prevalent in Africa and India, but obviously, also an increasing number of patients in U.S. and in Europe. You have a little bit more than 2,000 newborns per annum in the U.S. diagnosed with sickle cell disease. Those numbers in U.S. and Europe will keep increasing. As I said, one of the most underserved disease. We hear a lot about anemia. We hear a lot about VOC, vaso-occlusive crisis. What we need to know and remember that this is a chronic systemic disease leading into multiple organ damage that ultimately will result in a life-threatening, life-shortening disease. The life expectancy in high-income countries is between 48 and 55 years old. I am not going to speculate around the average age of the room, but I am sure many of us will feel uncomfortable knowing that with sickle cell disease, that the life expectancy that you should expect. The significant unmet need remaining here is not only about access to treatment. It has to be addressed through access to care and improving the patient pathway. Probably you have seen the top-line results that we presented a few months ago. Just make it very short. This is the first and only asset that has proven reducing both VOCs and increasing hemoglobin in a study with those two parameters as co-primary endpoint. 27% VOCs reduction on an annual basis, almost 50% of hemoglobin response. 70% of the people on trial were on hydroxyurea, meaning that etavopivat can be used either on monotherapy or an add-on to hydroxyurea. We have a substantial reduction in blood transfusion with etavopivat. If you need more, you need to wait for ASH in December. The time to first VOC was delayed by four months. That is clearly best in class that we have today in our hands in the sickle cell disease. Our strategy is very clear, straightforward. We need to raise the understanding of sickle cell disease, not as a one-off crisis that you need to manage in emergency room, but as a chronic systemic disease that you need to fix on the long term. We want to establish etavopivat. We will establish etavopivat as a standard of care, as I said, either monotherapy and/or add-on to HU in both pediatric and adult population. Finally, this is Novo. There is no way we will turn and shy away from the need to expand patient access in sickle cell disease. Also, by ensuring that we increase the maturity of the patient care model in a continent like Africa, but in countries as well like India. That ultimately will increase the accessible patients that will be able to afford an innovative treatment like etavopivat. That work is already ongoing in Africa, like a country like Kenya, but also in India. You have seen it is a rule in the blood and endocrine when we have one asset, we do not limit to one indication. It is true for FREHEMGO, it is true for Sogroya®, it is true as well for etavopivat. We aim to file by the end of the year for sickle cell disease and also to move next to the next indication, which will be thalassemia. One quick word on the hemato-renal space with zaltinibar, another success story in term of BD as mentioned by Mike. Etavopivat was from Forma. We acquired more recently zaltinibar from Omeros. It's a MASP-3 innovative mechanism action, MASP-3 inhibitors that we believe will work in the alternative pathway addressing large set of diseases starting, as I said, with PNH, where we still have roughly 20%-30% of patients not being able to achieve HB normalization. Early data from zaltinibar here are showing positive signal in term of efficacy in patients either naive PNH patients, either naive or suboptimal responders to C5 inhibitors. In IgAN, much larger population, we know that still a progressive disease, patients still progressing into end stage renal disease. We also see a lot of innovation and the very fast moving guidelines toward more aggressive target to treat. We foresee zaltinibar as becoming part of the standard of care in a market where combination therapy will probably be the rule of the game, particularly in the renal disease. Phase III study in PNH expected to start by mid-2027, followed by also IgAN and potentially other indication. In a nutshell, blood and endocrine has a robust clinical trial pipeline, clinical pipeline, fueled by internal development as well as from BD. A very good mix. Not going to go through all of them. I just want to mention that innovate as well is there. The bar is high, but we still invest in rare indication in hemophilia, trying to bring the first oral treatment for this population. I will not repeat those three points. I hope I've been able to convince you and to gain a little bit of share of mind and soon share a voice in your very busy brains and agenda, and to have blood and endocrine on top of it. Thank you very much. You have heard from Habib the very exciting, the blood and endocrine disorder growth engine, and Martin and I would go through our two other growth engine. I know lunch is waiting, so Martin and I will try to be fast. First of all, you heard from Habib to say how do we select this growth engine? It's about look at unmet needs, science and ability to win. In cardiovascular and liver is these area we see unmet need and also battle ability to win. Mike already mentioned in the morning we already serve more than 46 million patients, and these patients they have already cardiovascular and liver risks. This connection is already shown also in the guideline you have seen, whether for diabetes, obesity management, even GLP-1 treatment is now recommended for selected MASH. We see overlap there. Let's look at the unmet medical need. Cardiovascular diseases is projected to nearly double by 2050, and these are the areas we're going to focus on. It's about atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, ASCVD, and heart failure. On the right, you see your own forecast, the consensus, which is despite seeing the growth you still project to grow double digit. Because cardiovascular is still the leading cause of death. Despite the treatment, why is that? Because there are residual risks which remain, and we have seen that inflammation is recognized as one contributor of that inflammation. Despite the negative readout of ZEUS, we are actually try to follow the signs and to find more about the inflammatory pathway. ATTR cardiomyopathy is actually one of the areas give you an idea for what type of area is Novo looking for. This is one type of area we will be focusing on because there is undertreated, underdiagnosed first, undertreated. It is estimated that U.S. there will be 150,000 patients who have ATTR cardiomyopathy, but only a tiny fraction are being treated. If they are diagnosed and not treated, the median survival is between 2 and 6 years. Even treated, it is still very poor. The reason for that is because the current treatment would slow down the formation of amyloids, but does not deplete the deposit already accumulated. With our TTR depleter, Frametec, we are going to address this. Martin would explain much better and share more. Let me conclude the strategic part on why cardiovascular. There is overlap in patients. We have proven developed expertise in running large cardiovascular outcomes trial, including the SELECT trial. We have built relationship with payers, prescribers, and health systems. Even despite the read of ZEUS, actually through the tecemap, we have gained so many experience in that field and developed very profound relationships. Then, of course, we complement that with our pipeline. Now moving to the other growth engine, liver. I will focus on MASH. MASH actually represents a large unmet need. It is defined by the different stages of fibrosis. What you really have to remember is that the progression could be very fast. So 20% of F3 patient could progress to F4 cirrhosis. What does F4 cirrhosis mean? There is increased risk of liver decompensation. Liver decompensation may require very expensive liver transplant, could be up to $1 million in the U.S. EU/U.S., 42,000 liver transplant are conducted annually. The mortality rate, of course, increases a lot with the later stage of fibrosis. You already heard from Martin that we would have drugs addressing that, and he will come to that in a minute. If you look at right side, the hepatology market is expected to grow and the main driver is MASH. Actually, in most of the models, ALD, alcohol-related liver diseases, is not in the model. Why ALD is important? Because in ALD patients, the progression is even twice as faster than MASH patients and 70% are cirrhotic. This is actually the major cause for liver transplant. On the right, you actually see the waiting list for liver transplant. It has dropped due to hepatitis C become curable, but then MASH and ALD become the driver for the increase of liver transplant. You may ask, how are you going to enter into liver? We are already in MASH with Wegovy Injectable. Soon we expect approval for Wegovy pill for MASH. We have UBT, which you heard from Martin will bring spectacular, hopefully, weight loss. It is not only the weight loss, but also other benefits, including liver. For the late stage, especially for the F4 with high mortality risk, we have acquired the asset of efroxifermin, very promising for Akero Therapeutics, which we were developing in late stage, but also in ALD. Martin always say it does not stop there. We have to go further, and we will have novel mode of actions. Besides treatment, we actually look at diagnosis because liver diseases or MASH, the issue was it was depending on liver biopsy, and we are actually working with our partners to develop tests which are broad and scalable and non-invasive. On Echosens, we work on FibroScan®, and Roche Diagnostics and Siemens Healthineers will work on blood test, which are hopefully made available broader even to non-liver specialists. Martin, we will increase the diagnosis, and we are eagerly awaiting more and faster innovative medicines. Thank you very much. As Hong already alluded to, when we talk about cardiovascular disease, at least certain parts of cardiovascular disease, when we talk about liver disease, there is a substantial unmet need. One of the areas that is truly unmet because there is no treatment available is inflammation in cardiovascular disease. While I do not like to talk about neutral data, I think I have to address ziltivekimab a little bit because there is a very strong correlation between inflammation and the risk of cardiovascular disease, ASCVD. There is also a very strong correlation between inflammation and heart failure. Nevertheless, when we took the first anti-IL-6 drug into a cardiovascular outcomes trial, the ZEUS trial, randomizing patients to either ziltivekimab or to placebo, we saw absolutely nothing. The hazard ratio was 0.99. You can then either conclude the concept of inflammation as a driver for cardiovascular risk is wrong, ziltivekimab as a drug or IL-6 as a target is not doing the trick, or it was the wrong population. We needed a less advanced population in this space. Based on what we have learned from ZEUS, and ZEUS was a really well-conducted trial, so we are taking a number of learnings already. Our conclusion is we still have to pursue quite actively inflammation and cardiovascular disease. We are not done with ziltivekimab, we are still doing the ARTEMIS trial. We are not done with oral IL-6, that will go into phase I later this year, actually next month. We also want to actually expand that footprint, focusing on NLRP3 inhibition. Again, I apologize now going into what we have specifically learned, but our conclusions are quite clear. NLRP3, next to what we are doing with IL-6 inhibition, is interesting because it is further upstream from IL-6. NLRP3 is also one of a number of inflammasomes, those inflammasomes being not touched by the NLRP3 inhibition, therefore, being able to respond to, for example, infections. Presumably then leading to we can inhibit NLRP3, we can potentially accrue CV benefit, but not necessarily with the infection risk that we have seen with the IL-6. It is still early days for the NLRP3s. We still have to generate the outcomes. To pursue still both IL-6, but also specifically a reasonably broad portfolio of NLRP3 assets. We have one in phase I as we speak. We will take another in a couple of months, and we will take more in next year, potentially also doing external collaborations or acquisitions. We also have to acknowledge that sometimes we need to think about combination therapies, getting the best of two worlds. We talked a lot about what we specifically know from semaglutide and the CV benefits, but we also have other GLP-1s that we think will resemble what semaglutide can do in the cardiovascular space. You've heard me talk about a lot, that we don't think that all the GLP-1s gives the same magnitude of CV benefit. Semaglutide obviously being leading from an outcomes data perspective. We want to find the best of two worlds when we combine maybe next generation GLP-1 with an all PCSK9 inhibitor that we've had in phase II already. We're showing the data from that phase II trial here, where we're showing when we compare to a placebo, when we compare to an active comparator, that peptide-based or PCSK9 is actually quite efficient. Combining that with a GLP-1 analog could potentially lead to substantial benefits in the cardiovascular space. The beauty of it is we can develop that as an injection therapy, and we can do that quite fast, initiating phase I next year, potentially being on the market around the turn of the decade. The oral is also doable. It's also scalable. It will take a little bit longer because we have to generate more data. But having that offering, that differentiated offering in the space of what we can already do with GLP-1s in obesity and diabetes is going to be very attractive. Hong also mentioned ATTR cardiomyopathy. It's basically amyloid transthyretin deposits in the heart that leads to impaired cardiac function, but also impaired outcomes for patients. Now, there are assets on the market and in development that are stabilizers or silencers in nature. What they do not do is to remove the already deposited TTR in the heart. The depleters have the potential to do that. So, coramitug is an ATTR antibody. It's currently in phase III. Oh, sorry, wrong way. We have already conducted phase II and reported on that. The important message here is that phase II was conducted in patients of whom 80% was already on standard of care. So in recent months and years, there's been a dialogue on, can we improve this space on top of standard of care. Here you see one biomarker of efficacy, namely NT-proBNP, being significantly reduced compared to placebo. Actually, in the space of one year, the placebo arm increased substantially while the active treatment decreased. We've also looked at, obviously, other biomarkers, and we've decided to take coramitug into phase III. Simple trial. Speaking to the unmet need, it's a reasonably small trial, but still an outcomes trial. We need approximately 1,500 patients randomized to either coramitug or placebo. Event-driven, and we'll see the readout in the years to come. In the MASH space, I've already talked about UBT, substantial weight loss potential building on three biologists You all know, again, glucagon biology seems to be very good for reducing steatohepatitis. The promise of UBT251 is that it seems to be as efficacious as other tri-agonists out there. We have to prove that in phase III, obviously. But it also seems to be more tolerable, potentially giving a true differentiator to both glucagon co-agonism, but also glucagon-based tri-agonism. UBT251, we intend to take into phase III for MASH in addition to, obviously, the weight loss program. Definitely in monotherapy, potentially also in combination therapy. Hong and I agree it doesn't stop there. We also have efruxifermin, and efruxifermin is potentially hugely exciting. We already have Wegovy in the market for F2 and F3 MASH. UBT251 and other dual and tri-agonists based on glucagon will be primarily for F2 and F3. But F4 is where the huge unmet need is. One, because patients die with F4, have a lot of both liver, but also cardiovascular morbidity with F4, and there is no treatment available. In phase II, efruxifermin showed not only an ability to decrease steatohepatitis, but also fibrosis in a significant and a clinically relevant way in patients with F4. That means it has the potential to be first and best in class in F4. On top of that, it also had really, really competitive data in F2 and F3, so this is a super strong asset. It is important for us to call out, we see the true excitement of efruxifermin in F4. Yes, we will have a readout in F2 and F3, and we believe that to be very strong next year. But the true value for treating physicians and patients will come with F4. Therefore, we are doing our very best together with our partners to speed up the phase IV trial, so we will see the readout as soon as possible. Again, Hong mentioned alcoholic liver disease. Here we can truly also see high potential benefit of efruxifermin in either monotherapy or in combination therapy. The beauty of having different targets in our memorandum, different assets that are addressing different priorities, is that we can think of them as monotherapies, but we can also do the combination therapies that generate, hopefully, the better efficacy, the superior and differentiated efficacy without compromising on safety and tolerability. This basically means that we have a very strong foundation for a cardiovascular, but also a liver-specific pipeline when we talk about cardiometabolic cardiovascular disease or metabolic cardiovascular disease and metabolic liver disease. We obviously intend to build on that with phase I assets, with research, but also with external innovation. I think with that, I will invite Michael and Hong and Habib to the stage for Q&A. Thank you very much, Martin, Hong, and Habib. Habib? Can we see any questions? Go for Richard again. Thanks very much. Richard Foster, JPMorgan. Maybe just on ZEUS, if you could give us a bit more detail on the final impacts on LDL cholesterol and triglycerides. Did they have any impact on the CV outcomes in the trial? Thinking about the NLRP3, what effect does that have on some of the dimensions that IL-6s do that are counter-regulatory to the effect on CV mortality? Thanks very much. Absolutely. We primarily saw an effect on inflammatory markers, so free IL-6 CRP, and we saw a substantial reduction there without seeing major impact on triglycerides. The big question, and again, I am not really able to disclose, is what is then potentially driving benefit and where? Very happy to share in maybe the future when we have shown where exactly we are going with this. But suffice it to say, we do have some quite substantial insights that we believe can potentially derive a lot of value in this space. Specifically for NLRP3, as we discussed, it is more upstream. It does, in principle, lead to IL-6, IL-1 beta release, also CRP increase, and by inhibition, you inhibit that specific cascade. But you do not inhibit the other inflammatory cascades that are maybe more driven by, for example, infectious agents. You could expect to see more efficacy on the cardiovascular side without having necessarily to compromise on infection on the tolerability side. Great. Thank you, Martin. Just looking for Seamus. Thanks. Seamus Fernandez from Guggenheim. Just a couple of quick questions. Martin, on the F4 side of things, your emphasis on F4, I think, has been very consistent, but do you see an opportunity to advance into F3 with FGF21, or are there safety concerns associated with that, the bone effects or bone biomarker dynamics? We saw some BMD changes in some of the F4 population that might be concerning the earlier you go, but just wanted to get your thoughts on the opportunity to move further forward there. I think it's a fair question, and obviously you don't have pharmacology without having also the potential for side effects. From a regulatory perspective, but also from a clinical perspective, we have to think about the benefit-risk. At this point in time, we clearly keep the door open for F2 and F3. But if you think about benefit-risk, F4 is where the huge unmet need is, and that's also where we think that we'll see the biggest benefit. Thank you, Martin. Pete? Thanks. Peter Verdult, BNP Paribas. Martin, can we go back to a question earlier that wasn't answered? You talked about in the GLP-1 portfolio, thermostable and once-monthly, but you're also talking about next gen. So if it's not a convenience or dosing at play, then perhaps something a bit more exciting on the efficacy and safety side. What are you willing to say about next gen GLP-1? Without going into specific, I think you touched on the parameters that we're interested at looking at. I think I can already now disclose it's not necessarily on the affordability side, but when we look for differentiation, we look for efficacy, we look for convenience, we look for safety, and we look for tolerability. We need to see the phase I readout, but we do believe that that next gen GLP-1 is differentiated on one and potentially more of these variables. Sachin, question. Sachin Jain, Bank of America. On the oral PCSK9, obviously you've got a couple ahead. Could you please just clarify how you think you're going to be differentiated? Is it efficacy? Is it the combination, because another competitor also has a combination? Perhaps a little bit more detail there. Thank you. Yeah. So I think what we are clearly seeing, both obviously in diabetes, where we've been for a number of years, but also in diabetes, different patients have different needs. There will be patients who are very much focused on cardiovascular disease and reducing their long-term cardiovascular risk. Now, we all know that GLP-1s introduce a reduction in cardiovascular risk, specifically semaglutide, in both diabetes and obesity. But it does so more through decrease in inflammation, decrease in body weight, decrease in maybe blood pressure, than it does in decrease in lipids. If we combine a GLP-1 with a PCSK9 inhibitor, that sort of missing link could add to the CV benefits that we see with the GLP-1s. That would make it differentiated if we can document a substantial decrease in lipids on top of what we just discussed on the weight loss, the glycemic control, the hypertension, the inflammation benefits. Graham? Thanks. Graham Parry from Citi. Just a question on coramitug and differentiation versus cliramitug, the AstraZeneca depleter. I think they would highlight they have multiple binding sites across the amyloid protein, which potentially can give better clearance, which I think yours has only got a single binding site. If you could just talk to that mechanism of action and what you've seen in data that gives you confidence that it wouldn't be an inferior product. If I think about the data, obviously I can only do indirect comparisons, but I showed you data on NT-proBNP. When we look across what we've seen from others' phase II versus what we see in our phase II, it actually looks reasonably comparable. That basically means that I think we have a competitive drug. Timing then also becomes important. But I think it's too early to speculate into differentiation as this is a new field. What we take a lot of comfort in is obviously that our asset, coramitug, seems to work on top of standard of care. Right. Florent? Good morning. Florent Cespedes from Oddo BHF. A question on your cardiorenal portfolio. Could you elaborate on how you will position your products on the PNH and IgAN versus the existing treatments? Sorry, cardiorenal? Yeah, cardiorenal. No. I heard cardiorenal. Yeah. Hematurinal. Hematurinal. zaltenibart. zaltenibart. Okay. Hemato-renal. Thank you. On the positioning. Sorry? Of setaniparat. Yes. But the positioning in PNH, it will be obviously different from the positioning that we see in the renal indication. The way we see it in the renal indication is to move earlier, right after the current palliative standard of care based on the higher efficacy profile versus most innovative drug that were on the market today, a good safety profile, and also a very convenient administration regimen. We are aiming for sub-Q. But also to fully answer your question, in the IgAN and the renal, we also foresee that combination therapy will gain more and more as a standard of care between complementary mechanism of action, and this is also something that we want to leverage on. On the PNH, we want to see that who can do the most can do the least by addressing the naive and the suboptimal C5 responders, and thus position it also as a potential lead in those indication. Final question, Simon Baker. Thank you. Simon Baker from Rothschild & Co Redburn. Question on sickle cell disease. You talked about the size of the opportunity, 10 million patients. It is a big indication, but a lot of those patients are not easily accessible. You touched on how we have seen a number of clinical and commercial setbacks, missteps by others. What have you learned from the disappointments of others, and what is your strategy for really addressing that core opportunity within sickle cell disease? Well, first of all, I think we look at it from each country as different country archetype. I want to make sure that we address all patient needs and pain point in the patient journey in the U.S., in Europe. If your question is more specifically around low, mid-income countries, I am not going to say about mistakes. Let me call it learnings from other projects. If you jump too fast in trying to fix the access to treatment before you also improve and address the diagnosis, infrastructure, physician training, public awareness, then you will fail. That is not only for sickle cell disease. I have a bit of experience in my past in Africa as a general manager for a region. Actually, it is true for any disease. We tend to rush too fast into trying to fix it by just giving the drug and forgetting the overall picture. It is much harder, but that is our commitment today is to improve sickle cell disease patient care from diagnosis to improve access to treatment. That is one learning. The second learning, you do not do it by yourself. It has to be in collaboration with the government and other private partners, but it is absolutely essential that you have a commitment from national authorities. Ultimately, they are responsible for their population. All right. Thank you very much. Thanks, Hong. Thanks, Martin. Thanks, Habib. We are going into lunch now, and after that, we are going into some exciting sessions on the operations in the U.S., IO, global manufacturing supply, and also financials. Just to wrap up this session, I think we got a very clear strategy from Mike aiming to grow the business. We are strengthening diabetes. We are expanding in obesity. You saw the pipelines evolving there. We are building also blood endocrine as a new growth engine, and also adding to that on the cardiovascular and liver side. With that, I hope you will enjoy lunch, and also be aware that there will be plenty of extra Q&A possibilities. There is also going to be half an hour at the end of the day for a full panel debate with all the EVPs. We will get to all of you, but thanks for the morning session. [Break] [Presentation] Thank you. Welcome back from lunch. For those of you that brought plates back in, please continue. I'm Jamey Millar. I'm the EVP for U.S. Operations, and shortly I'll be joined by Ed Cinca, who's Senior VP for Marketing and Patient Solutions. I'm going to start upfront with the message I will close with, and that is that the obesity market remains incredibly attractive, if not yet still under-penetrated. We're growing volume aggressively and see a long runway for this category. Make no mistake, Ozempic is a critical priority, and the Ozempic pill is a key market event here with the recent launch in the United States. Lastly, the pipeline is very compelling, not just simply as individual assets, but increasingly as the portfolio approach emerges within various disease states. Let's get into it. The chart on the left speaks to GLP-1 total volume, second quarter of this year versus same period year ago, up 26% overall. The middle chart shows TRX market share, specifically in the obesity category. Since January, we've gained roughly 8 share points across the obesity franchise behind the launch of Wegovy pill and the Wegovy HD 7.2 milligram introduction. Nonetheless, as we reported out in our Q2 earnings, we see sales decline 4% at CER, indicative of the price pressure in the mandated space, i.e. the government program space, as well as the discretionary commercial or private market. Our strategy in the U.S. is consistent with the overall corporate direction, as you'd expect. I'm going to focus primarily on type 2 diabetes and obesity. In the other disease states, we are executing and preparing for several imminent launches. In the diabetes space, as mentioned, stabilizing the Ozempic share erosion has been a priority, then launching the Ozempic pill, and Ed will share more about the progress to date on that. Within obesity, we want to expand the Wegovy franchise overall, winning in the oral segment with the differentiated profile that we have with the Wegovy pill. Successfully launched the first combination GLP-1 and amylin product in CagriSema, and Ed will speak to that. We are also excited about the expanded access in Part D behind the bridge program, CMS-sponsored bridge program in the U.S., offering for the first time seniors access to obesity medications. This will be enabled by a continued focus on four core capabilities, increased access and affordability, building differentiated core competencies in the commercial space, inclusive of the NovoCare ecosystem, and I will explain a little more of that momentarily. We are going to leverage fully the new culture imperatives and specifically the customer obsession, the outside-in view from any customer, whether that be a regulatory customer, a payer customer, an HCP customer, or the patient or consumer as customer. Additionally, competitiveness. We have instituted a measurement culture of KPIs where we measure competitive share of voice, share of spend in every category as we look forward. Ensuring competitive launches round that out the set of core capabilities. In terms of payer access, and many of you know, I joined Novo in February after five years with Optum Rx, the pharmacy benefit manager of UnitedHealth Group. Ironically, the first medicine my team there reviewed for clinical economic and formulary inclusion was Wegovy injectable. The payer reticence in this category is significant, and overcoming that is a key priority of ours. Table on the left shows the unfortunate cascade in the category. This is not Novo specific. This is a categorical fact. GLP-1 new to brand RXs, if you take 100 of them, only 35 get filled today. In between, you have all the expected impediments in terms of utilization management, prior authorizations, inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, step edits, et cetera. That compares to an analog chronic disease state, type 2 diabetes, where half of all NBRXs are filled. So it is subpar access in the U.S. for GLP-1s for obesity. Our focus is to address payer concerns around cost trend, which increasingly tends toward the volume side of the equation. Especially as you consider in 2027, beginning in January, we will reduce our list prices for Rybelsus, Ozempic, and Wegovy to $675 as announced. On the volume side of the equation, we will continue to look at competitive net pricing that is sustainable in the marketplace. We will address a key insight of payers, which is predictability, by examining increased access in targeted subpopulations over time. We will continue to demonstrate value through outcomes in real-world evidence to express the value proposition of our medicines from a payer-centric point of view. We are also exploring innovative access models inclusive of direct-to-employer approaches. Lastly, we do not want the 18-month pilot in Part D to be eliminated at the end of 2027. So we are looking and working with CMS and the administration closely to ensure a durable benefit for seniors, and again, demonstrating the value of that access in the Part D space. The obesity market, make no mistake, is being driven by consumer dynamics. That is the consumer as not just the end user of the medicine, but the budget holder and the decision maker, unlike traditional prescription models. It's also indicative of the fact that 50% of our Wegovy franchise volume is now in the self-pay channel. As Mike said earlier today, 90% of Wegovy pill is self-pay versus reimbursed. This is a dynamic that will continue in this category. We meet the patients and consumers where they are, whether that be accessing the medicines at retail outlets across the U.S., through our telehealth network, or through our own pharmacy, NovoCare Pharmacy. In the telehealth space, we will soon announce the addition of a 10th high-volume telehealth partner to the ecosystem. We look forward to that. Speaking of one telehealth partner, Ro, we launched a very innovative subscription model at the end of March of this year, where for the consumer it offers predictability. A flat monthly price. Consumers can sign up for 3, 6, or 12-month subscriptions. It obviates what they don't like, which is the escalating price as they titrate through the regimen. What the data shows already with Ro is rapid uptake. We have 90,000 orders that are accompanied by a subscription and 55,000 active subscribers. Importantly, the usage is influenced by the subscription model. Consumers in the first 4 months, so granted, it's the first 4 months of experience since end of March, literally those in the subscription model have filled 4 prescriptions in 4 months. So 100% adherence as compared to 3 prescriptions in 4 months in a matched cohort of non-subscribers. They tend to sign up for the longer duration plans, the 6 and 12-month subscriptions, and really importantly, over 50% of patients enrolled in the subscriptions are utilizing 9 milligrams or 25 milligrams strength. So they're titrating through the Wegovy pill regimen, which creates a flywheel effect in terms of the efficacy and the experience achieved at those higher dose-dependent doses. Z, the CEO of Ro, recognizes the innovation in the approach to the subscription model. Lastly, NovoCare 2.0. The simple summary of this slide is that we are evolving our platform as we speak. The old platform that we launched with was available for cash-only consumption. This platform will be cash to coverage, as well as coverage only inclusive of bridge patients. It also dealt with fundamentally access and availability, access and distribution. We're seeking to meet the patient across their patient journey, all the way from acquisition to access to adherence and loyalty, building support programs throughout their treatment journey. The overall imperative for this is better functionality than the first version of NovoCare Pharmacy with a lower cost to serve. Our current model is labor-intensive, lower margin. As Mike laid out in his opening slides, we seek to increase the margin of our self-pay business through this improved functionality and lower cost to serve. It is literally live as we speak for cash pay, self-pay, and the additional functionality will phase in through the balance of this year. With that, it's my pleasure to introduce my colleague, Ed Cinca, who leads our marketing effort. While he's coming up, I'll just briefly introduce him. Ed launched Ozempic, launched Rybelsus, launched Wegovy Injectable. He's been with the company about 20 years but took a brief hiatus, and we're glad that he returned late last year, just in time to have significant impact on the Wegovy Pill launch. Welcome, Ed. Thank you, Jamie. Appreciate it. Really appreciate that. It is my pleasure to describe a little bit of what has been happening in the U.S. and give you a little bit of a flavor of how we are coming to market. I do want to build on the comments that Jamie made because I think that the telehealth business and NovoCare have fundamentally changed the way we are engaging with patients today, creating new routes for access and truly meeting patients where they are. I would say that as much as things change, some things still remain the same. We need strong science, we need really strong execution, and of course, strong patient demand. I think the Wegovy pill is a perfect example of that. First of all, the clinical profile for the Wegovy pill is second to none. We have such a compelling clinical profile with 17% weight loss, patients who start and stay on therapy. It is the only oral obesity medicine that carries with it a cardiovascular indication on label. All of this predicated on some 50 million years of real-world patient experience. That is some pretty heady stuff. More recently, we are seeing now a unique advantage that is not on our label. In fact, that is the fact that we do not carry a drug-to-drug interaction warning or any sort of precautions. From that perspective, we are seeing that in certain segments start to elevate. We take that clinical profile, and we pair it with real strong execution within the U.S. market. I have to say, I am incredibly proud of the way our organization came together for the Wegovy pill launch. In a matter of 14 days, from approval until the day of launch, we had a product supply already shipped out to some 70,000 pharmacies stocked across the United States, as well as an entire field force ready, trained, and on the ground in offices, ready to sample and to start educating around the pill. We complemented that with really strong patient communications, very smart and efficient direct-to-patient advertisements that culminated with a very large awareness campaign in and around the Super Bowl. That was even further augmented with our telehealth partners and how they were coming to market. As you can see on the right-hand side, all of this has led to significant uptake and something that we are very proud of. There's been no letup, and today what we're seeing is, on average, some 285,000 TRXs per week with the Wegovy pill relative to another oral entrant into the market at approximately 45,000 TRXs per week. I know everybody in this room is good at math, but I'm going to do some math for you and tell you that on average, that's about 40,000 TRXs per day in Wegovy pill relative to what the competitor's doing on a weekly basis. I know that there's been some headlines and maybe a little bit of confusion within the marketplace recently. So I want to address that and take it on. Wegovy pill NBRx, new-to-brand prescriptions, is greater than 80% within the market. As you can see within the data, often underreported is the Wegovy pill volume. When looking at the total picture, then you have a much cleaner view. What's really exciting about the Wegovy pill launch is that it's doing exactly what we expected it to do within the marketplace. What you're seeing here on the left-hand side is a view of the Wegovy pill performance in the first 3 and 6-month period of time. Looking at OASIS 4 relative to real-world data that we've seen from our telehealth partners at Ro, as well as patients who participate with WeGoTogether app. Now, obviously, the OASIS 4 study carried forward much longer, so this is only the first 6 months since launch, and that's why you're only seeing the 10% reduction, not the 17% that was carried through the totality of the study. But what I want to draw your attention to is not only the consistency of which you're seeing in a randomized clinical trial relative to real-world experiences, but the market improvements in weight loss that are happening early at the onset of the administration of the pill, but then in some cases, equal if not greater overall performance in the real-world setting. So if we distill that down and better understand what the implications here are, we're talking about real-world, not in a highly controlled environment. My friends, the idea of food and water restrictions is not real as an implement here in overall performance. Patients are getting in the real world what we're seeing in the clinical trials. One of the other things that's kind of exciting in seeing the development of how our pill is coming to market is that some 90% of our prescriptions are self-pay. We take that as a real strong sign of value because patients are voting with their wallets. They see the value that they're getting in the pill, and they recognize that this is something that they want. As a result, we're seeing persistency in pill that's comparable to that of injection, which means that it's working exactly the way that we anticipated, and patients are starting and staying on therapy. In fact, another aspect here that's really quite exciting is that 80% of patients who are coming into the Wegovy franchise now via pill are GLP-1 naive. That's really exciting because one of our intentions was to expand the market, and it's happening. More exciting is the fact that already, in a very short order, oral obesity medications represent a third of the total obesity prescription market. In a very short time, not only is Wegovy pill capturing the majority of new-to-brand prescriptions, as well as expanding the market, but this oral space is continuing to grow, and it represents significant upside into the future. It doesn't stop there because together with the Wegovy injection and Wegovy pill, we're seeing the opportunity to unlock this marketplace. As you all know, we're still just scratching the surface on the availability of patients, and this is a very undertreated population. Still, within that population who are taking obesity medicines, the Wegovy franchise now represents some 55% market share in new-to-brand prescriptions, which is really exciting, and there's a lot more room here for continued growth. We think that we will have this opportunity because there's a really compelling offering, one that's rather unique to the Wegovy franchise. With injection, we're offering 21% overall weight loss with multiple indications accompanying that. Patients start and stay on therapy. Then with the pill, some 17% weight loss. Again, patients start and stay on therapy complemented with cardiovascular indication. From that perspective, we want to continue to invest and see a lot of great opportunity. It's that energy and momentum that we want to bring to market with CagriSema's introduction. CagriSema represents a really unique opportunity for us to now take the GLP-1 biology and accompany it with the amylin biology. I think it would be important to comment that the initial configuration here for CagriSema is not at the highest dose of semaglutide or Wegovy, but it is at the 2.4 milligrams of Wegovy compared or complemented with 2.4 milligrams of cagrilintide. Even at those levels, we're seeing 23% weight loss, and that 23% weight loss achieving one in five patients getting greater than 30% weight loss. One aspect that I think is just incredibly exciting to me particularly is the fact that we're seeing on average 25% weight loss happening with women. The reason I'm excited is because on the previous slide you saw that this is the bulk majority of the patients who are most engaged and most interested in taking prescription medicine for obesity. As well as then having a very distinguishing and contributing factor here, which is to say we have an improvement in physical function as well as then preserving muscle strength. So it's a really unique offering and something that's going to complement our portfolio quite nicely. Of course, we need to bring that together in totality with the strong execution. I'm happy to say that we're only days away, months away from our PDUFA before the end of the fourth quarter. From that perspective, we're ramping up already in unbranded ways, introducing amylin biology to our HCP customers, and we will start building demand with our patients in anticipation of this launch early into next year. For a moment, I'd like to turn your attention to maybe the catalyst for all the reason why there's so much excitement around the GLP-1 class, and that is Ozempic. Ozempic specifically within the type 2 diabetes market. There have been many followers, and there are a lot of other GLP-1s, but there is only one Ozempic. There's one Ozempic now in two presentations with three indications, on-label indications. That's really exciting because as you can see that even within the diabetes space, there's quite an underserved population here. And we have a huge opportunity, one of the reasons why we will continue to invest in diabetes and specifically with Ozempic. Now I'd be remiss without acknowledging the fact that we've had some ups and downs with Ozempic recently. What I would tell you is that there have been quite a lot of changes within the healthcare landscape, between utilization management requirements, prior authorization requirements, as well as our own product supply constraints that have taken place both in and out of diabetes and obesity that have contributed to some highs and some lows. But as you can see here, this past year, we believe a lot of this has washed out from the trends, where we have now entered into this area of stabilization that speaks volumes about the strength and the resilience of the Ozempic brand. This franchise is performing really well, something again, that we will continue to invest in because we have the ultimate in brand recognition. We are at the pinnacle of here having a household brand. We're really excited about the fact that potentially having a 25-milligram pill to add to the armamentarium. The reason I'm so excited is because we have a little bit of proof positive already. Earlier this year, we introduced the Ozempic pill, where we had a reformulation of what was once Rybelsus into Ozempic. As you can see, we've had really nice transition occurring. But this is more than just a formulation change. This has actually opened up the door to quite a lot more utilization. In fact, as you can see, we have greater than 60% of the Ozempic pill new-to-brand prescriptions are coming from GLP-1 naive patients. That's really exciting because what it speaks volumes to is that injection barriers are real for either HCPs or patients. Now having a GLP-1 in a pill for type 2 diabetes is really exciting with a brand like Ozempic. So again, this is the strength of having one brand with two indications or two product form presentations and three indications. This is something that is most certainly exciting for us and one of the reasons we're going to continue to invest. I look forward to not only doing that with Ozempic and launching into tirzepatide, but launching multiple products for the next 5 years. So Jamie, I'm going to hand it back to you to talk about those. Thanks, Ed. As you know now from the morning discussion as well, we're on the cusp of the potential to launch 12 new medicines in the next 5 years, and we're excited about that. So let me close, before welcoming up my colleague for international operations, with where I started. So we have a long runway ahead of us in the obesity space. Within diabetes, Ozempic pill is creating a new enthusiasm around semaglutide, around Ozempic specifically, with new treatment-naive patients, GLP-1-naive patients coming over to the brand. The excitement is palpable in terms of the breadth of the portfolio, as mentioned, not just individual assets, but increasingly a portfolio approach within multiple disease states. So thank you very much. Look forward to your questions. Now I welcome Emil to the stage. Thank you, Jamie and Ed. I have a microphone, very good. I have around 20 minutes to give you a tasting menu of our strategy, our performance, and of course, the potential outside the U.S. I will speed up, and I hope you are ready. Now, we have a simple task from Mike that is, of course, to be a key contributor to the growth outlook that was described earlier today. And we are confident we will be exactly that. Our strategy, that is quite simple. No matter the archetype market, everyone is tasked with differentiating semaglutide across our brands. We do that, of course, offline with our traditional customers. They are still important, but we more and more also focus, of course, on online differentiation, on search engines, with digital key opinion leaders, et cetera. The other key priority across our geography, that is of course to replicate what they have done so brilliantly in the U.S. when it comes to telehealth, to really enable the reach of many, many more customers, but also to serve them better than we have done in the past, to work on stay time, for instance. Launching, of course, is also a brilliant way of reaching many more patients, particularly those with yet unserved needs, just as Habib has described earlier. We have talked already today about our upcoming loss in exclusivity. We are already facing that across many of our markets, and here it is, of course, for us to capture the volumes when prices go down, sometimes quite a bit. It is of course an immediate price effect, and then we capture the volumes again week by week, and I will also speak to that. Longer term, the ambition is to grow through also the European LOE with growth. And here we have already talked to some of the opportunities. Particularly, of course, the obesity pill is an incredible opportunity in terms of the Wegovy pill, following on with oral semaglutide, et cetera. We also have the growth engines described by Habib, FREHEMGO in hemophilia and sickle cell disease. The beauty of those two is we are not cannibalizing any of our current business, so it is a true add-on. I will also speak a little bit to insulin. It is more of a steady diesel engine kind of growth, as you know, but it will also be a nice backdrop for overall growth in the coming years. This slide speaks a little bit to the performance. It will be familiar to some of you, how we have grown across therapy areas in recent years. Also in first half and the regional contribution to that growth. I will try and give a little bit more color to it. If you look at the therapy areas first, you will see that it was really the year where obesity stood out in the first half, we grew 40% on top of the previous half year. That is quite something. Note that if we look at Wegovy alone, we grew more than 50%. You have asked about price, and within that growth of 50% in value for Wegovy, there was a mid-teens pricing headwind, but we are happy to give that up when we get that kind of growth and sometimes also good collaboration on stay time from telehealth providers. If you look at the now not rare, but blood and endocrine, due to our expansion, we had very decent 5% growth there, very much driven by our endocrine business. But again, that's before some of the big launches that I will talk to later today. We have insulin. We had a little bit of a headwind in the first half. We do plan to grow on par with the market. I will speak to that. This was very much due to tender timing. Lastly, I will also uncover a little bit our growth potential today when it comes to GLP-1 diabetes, because it's actually better in some ways than what this growth would suggest in the first half. Across geographies, you will see that it really was Europe and particularly mainland Europe, that stood out, also supported by Canada in the first half. There was a 20% growth with more headwinds in emerging markets where there's a lot of pricing and competitive pressure. So we of course would like to grow in all regions, but if we have to pick one region to grow strongly, Europe is great because that's of course, where we have the longest runway when it comes to the patent. Looking a bit outside in at the markets we operate in, how are they faring? You will see, as I said, that insulin is still a very decent area. We are selling or the market is worth around 60 billion DKK, growing 4% in value with 2% volume growth. Here it's of course an upgrade game rather than a market that's expanding rapidly, and I will also speak to that. GLP-1 diabetes in our part of the world outside the U.S., there's still very decent growth in that market, growing more than 30%. But at the same time, it's probably the last time I present this slide with diabetes GLP-1 being bigger as a market versus obesity, because you will see obesity growing significantly more than 100% year-over-year. You might then, of course, say, "Can this continue with that kind of GLP-1 growth, and particularly that kind of obesity growth in IO?" Exhibit there, number one to the right, that's basically on the x-axis, the number of people across the four regions living with either type 2 diabetes, obesity, all together, 1.7 billion. On the y-axis, you have the treatment rates. Hopefully, you will gather that there's a lot of runway outside Europe and Canada. Treatment rates that are well below 1% in most of these countries, but of course also within these regions, pockets that look more like Europe. If you look to then Europe, treatment rates stand at 4%, but you have big variation within. So within Europe, you can easily find a factor three in difference in treatment rates. So there's a lot of room to also up treatment rates within Europe. When it comes to value, we of course want to win in all the markets, but it's worth calling out that Europe and Canada, that's two-thirds of the value when it comes to GLP-1 across IO. Again, Europe is where we have, of course, most runway and where prices are holding up very nicely also when we look into the future. If we look at our competitiveness across, it's no secret that overall, we've been under some pressure if you look back the last year. You will see a decline here overall to around 52%. That is around a 7 percentage points drop in 12 months when you look at our overall volume share across both diabetes and obesity in the once weekly segment, where of course, the fight really is. The good news in this slide is we have actually been able to take our share up and so far stabilize. The low point around a year ago was a situation where we, in rolling 3 months, took 3 out of 10 patients. We are now at a point where we are at 40% of the share of growth, so 4 out of 10. That is quite a turnaround, and I will speak a little bit to what drove that here, and that is actually region Europe and Canada, where we now have share of growth above our market share. As you all realize, that is where you want to be if you are in commercial. A significant turnaround driven by coming back to Ozempic in full supply, great performance in Eastern Europe, where we launched late when it comes to Wegovy, and also the U.K. really coming back, which I will also speak to later. At the same time, we recognize that we still have our work cut out when it comes to the other regions. Share of growth is under pressure. Here we are optimizing how we work. We can speak maybe about that in the Q&A, but we are changing and transforming how we are set up across the globe. At the end of the day, if you are ready and you have transformed yourself, there is nothing better in pharma than launching when it comes to changing dynamics. We have planned what we internally call a launch festival in the coming 12 months or so. I cannot remember having been as busy launching during my 20 years in Novo Nordisk as we are right now. Some of it you might call life cycle management, but we treat it like true launches, and they have an opportunity to be transformative. You have up there 7.2, our U.S. colleagues spoke to that. It is incredibly important when patients come to, for instance, a telehealth provider, what our weight loss promise is, whether patients need it a lot. It is a little bit like an electric vehicle. You might not need 700 kilometers, but if there is one car that has 400 kilometers and another 700, you are likely to pick that if the prices are somewhat similar. So efficacy still matters, particularly in a telehealth setting when two products are next to each other. Of course, we also have the chance to improve stay time with 7.2, and you have seen the device out there. It is elegant in the sense that from a pricing perspective, the device cannot be click count, so we can also here be quite attractive. If you then look to the right, 2.0, we are late to that game in IO, but I will show later that it really matters. We have great real-world evidence. Some of you might come to EASD, and we will show the promise of that brand, both in terms of efficacy and on weight and A1C. So really something where we add and then build on a brand that has, of course, phenomenal label with critical organ protection. At the center, you have the Wegovy pill, best in class in terms of weight loss efficacy, great safety history with more than 50 million patient lives. And then to its point, if you, for instance, are a telehealth provider, drug-drug interactions and interference with statins, that is not very convenient for this patient population. We also have a large share of women, so interference with oral contraceptives, it is also messy. That is one of the reasons we think this is a real opportunity, and we know that there are a lot of patients on the sidelines. Many have felt that going on in obesity treatment, there is perhaps a fear of needles, but there is maybe also just a perception where consumers do not see themselves as patients ready to start on an injectable treatment. This has been a positive surprise, as also shared by Ed earlier. Here are a few examples of why we think these launches, also when it comes to Wegovy and the high dose, can really turn things around also across many more markets. The markets where we had the chance to launch first, that was in the U.K., and basically you will see how in the U.K. from a low point we have been able to increase our market share from around 10% to 30% during the span of a year. It starts there at 10%, and you know how we came into the U.K. with obesity. We launched in a constrained and limited way. That cannot be recommended. We are not going to repeat that for any other brands in the future. Then with step-up data coming out last year and being able to communicate that medically, 21% hammering that away, coming with the label earlier this year, and also having our commercial front line out there talking to the data, and then finally the device, we have really supported that turnaround. We have addressed many other things in the U.K. execution in the meantime, but definitely a big contribution from the step-up data and 7.2 in that significant turnaround here in the U.K. Another slide that speaks to the power, of course, of launching and particularly the Wegovy pill. This is a slide where there are a number of things to like, so I will try and call them out. Basically, we have distributed more than 1 million packs in the U.K. since we launched early July. But what of course is really interesting is not just sell-in, but also sell-out data. Here we extrapolate from insights gathered from 20 providers covering around two-thirds of the market. You will see a very rapid takeoff. Just to give some sense of proportions, I also have an internal bragging slide comparing this to my good U.S. colleagues. Basically looking at how are we faring here in the first weeks of launch versus the best launch in U.S. pharma history. What it shows is that the first 8 weeks in sell-out, our U.K. colleagues, and we have our general manager, Jephtham, here today, actually kept pace with the U.S. launch. Now in the latter 2 weeks, and that is why I am not bringing it, the U.S. got ahead, and that is also good for Novo Nordisk of course, given the importance of the U.S., and I do not want to take anything away from the best launch in U.S. pharma history. Also, of course, do not bet your pension on U.K. beating the U.S. So what this speaks to, of course, is that if you nail it in the U.K. from the get-go and you are fully aligned also with the telehealth providers, it has an enormous potential. I think some of you living here will sense that already. What is also to like about this slide is that something happened between week 7 and 8. One of our better-known competitors launched into the market, and you will see that after that, we actually had an upward trend shift. We had some of our best weeks the last 3 weeks, adding 65,000 packs on average or so in sell-out data. Assumed distributed to patients, that of course is super important. We also can look at the sell-in data. That is more messy here in the U.K. because there are a lot of fluctuations. Here, if we compare the first 3 weeks of our competitor with our first 3 weeks, we are around 4.5 times up. Not far off what you heard in terms of share from our U.S. colleagues. What is next? I am trying to preempt a question here a little bit that might come about the further rollout of the Wegovy pill in IO. First, just recapping, we have now launched into 3 markets. They are important because they constitute around a third of the current obesity potential in IO in value terms. Again, here, be a bit careful because when we look at current potential, we know that the Wegovy pill unlocks markets. The markets we launch into will automatically become a bigger weight. If we sort of look backwards, it is a third of the current potential. That is of course, all good and well. We do have plans, as you can already see, to reach two-thirds of our potential going forward. That is basically because our global manufacturing colleagues these days keep bringing good news in terms of how we crank up volumes in product supply. Really, really nice. Then you might ask, "So what is the next market?" That is Mexico. Mexico is actually a very exciting market. It is our largest obesity market in emerging markets. It is a market where we have just been able to extend our patent well beyond 2029 for Ozempic and further for Wegovy. It is a market where 7 out of 10 adult Mexicans live with obesity or overweight. It is one that is typically been a very large oral market. It is one where the government is very engaged in obesity, and it is one of course with a great pull from patients and one where we benefit from the halo effect of the U.S. That is why we have picked Mexico as one of the next ones. We will have a number of other markets coming up. I will not give all of them to you and competition today, but we are busy planning for an ambitious rollout, as you can see here. In terms of Germany, I have gotten some questions. What is the potential of Germany and how are you looking at that, and why did you actually pick Germany as the next market? One of them is that the unmet need, of course, is large in Germany. It is on par with what you have seen in the U.K. It is also a market that is changing these days. Germany, of course, has not been known to be sort of the most IT-friendly country in Europe, but actually it is a market where telehealth is really taking off. A year ago, telehealth as share of the whole German market stood at around 7%. Today it's 30% and driving more than half of the growth. A lot of the players who are successful here in U.K. are also moving in successfully to Germany. We of course collaborate with them. We see a significant opportunity here. How big it's going to be? Hard to say. We have 2 weeks of data. We are at around 46,000 in-market patients. Very, very strong for Germany so quickly into the launch. Roughly half from telehealth and half from the traditional channels. What I also hear is that from the market, the particular GPs are really excited about this opportunity. German doctors have traditionally been a little bit conservative. There's been some inertia, but here we hopefully have a chance to unlock also the GP segment. That has been the way we got to close to 10% of the population in Denmark being treated, similarly in Norway. If we can have both these engines going, GPs with good access and telehealth, it of course bodes well for Germany, but I'll let the numbers speak also in the future. Early on, I showed you that in GLP-1 diabetes, we were quite flattish in the first half. This is as often is the case with IO, a story that maybe takes some unpacking because this is an area where we are washing out still some lixisenatide sales. It's an area, if you zoom in on Ozempic, we actually had decent growth, 8%, but underneath that, again, there were sort of 2 stories. One was the markets where we have the long-running LOE, Europe, Oceania, Japan, and now also Mexico. Here we actually had phenomenally strong growth in the first half. Then we have headwinds across IO. We often talk about India, we talk about Canada, the early LOE markets, but generics are actually available in around 25 IO markets as we speak. Here of course, we have more headwinds. Again, we take some of that pricing pressure immediately, and then we have to go in and fight for the volumes. In some of these markets, we've actually also been holding back on Ozempic and we've launched quite late, almost at the same time as generics. The strategy is clear in these early LOE markets. Often we will launch with partners, second brands, to really play the affordability game. Also with strong partners that have good reach across these large geographies. In Canada, we have a savings card to keep the patients whole. 90% of Ozempic patients have opted into that card, and we're actually seeing good preservation of our volumes in the private channels in Canada. Overall, we stick to our guidance that, yes, there's a solid impact here in IO, mid-single digit impact this year in IO sales. Next year, we'll see a full year impact of that. We also have China coming in. We have with effect early next year, and of course, we will see an impact of that. After that, there's not so much happening until European LOE, and of course, those will be the years where we go in and fight hard for the volumes. Looking then to the markets here, the sort of the old markets with long LOE, we have definitely not given up on Ozempic, and that's where NovoCare 2.0 comes in. We've now launched in around 10 markets. We will be in 20 markets by the end of this year. This is the 2 markets where we have the most insights, Germany and the Netherlands, around 13% of our total value in IO combined. Here you see the impact of the launches. We came from, before this graph started, being below in share of growth our market share, and now we are above 7 out of 10 new patients to treatment in this space choosing Ozempic. Again, it is the promise where most patients have already maxed out on 1 milligram, they stay longer if they move to 2.0, they have very good results. It is also a good argument for starting if you are naive. This is my closing slide. As I said, it really is a launch festival in the U.S. We are catching up with them in terms of some of the launches that have happened there in recent years already, and we are seeing a really good impact. I do want to call out insulin. We serve 23 million patients with insulin across IO. Only a third are benefiting from a next generation insulin. If you look at modern insulin, so analogues, sort of the second tier segment, we have a very low share when it comes to the basal segment, around 10% or so. So we have a real upgrade opportunity with our more than 40 weekly launches coming up in a number of markets. Kyunsu, so that is our weekly combination of GLP-1 and icodec, and we will drive that hard. It takes more time. This is not sort of an exponential kind of market. You are out there with HCPs, but we are also going to use what we have learned from a more consumer-pull market and try and make patients aware that there are new opportunities. They can actually go from 365 injections to 52 with better outcomes in an easily used device that you can test yourself out there. Then, of course, already end of this year, we launch Frehemgo in the first European markets. That is the plan. It can become very big. We will do our best to help Habib beat the 50% growth promise that was given on behalf of the company. It is more than, and we will take that very seriously also in IO. Lastly, sickle cell disease. You saw 110,000 patients living across Europe. It is a population that is going to increase further and a huge opportunity. So there is a lot to come. You have the summary here. I will not read it aloud. You can all do that while I invite, of course, Jamey, Ed, and Michael up here to guide the Q&A. Thank you, Emil. Thank you, Jamey. And thank you, Ed. We are ready for the next set of questions. Kerry? Thank you very much. Kerry Holford at Berenberg. A question for you, Jamey, with regard to Medicare, the GLP-1 bridge. How is that uptake tracking relative to your expectations? We can see your competitor has seen a more significant uptick in demand since that came online on the 1st of July. What more do you need to do to capitalize on that opportunity and to unlock that going forward? And perhaps you can also talk to the opportunity with the pill, Ozempic, Wegovy also in that space. Thanks, Kerry, for the question. We are pleased with the volume uptake. It is exceeding our expectations. Seniors are motivated for the first time to have access to weight loss medications. Not satisfied with our share achievement. We have crept up a few share points since the initial week. So in the latest week, our share emulates what I will call the share differential prior to bridge in traditional Medicare Part D. As many of you may know, other indications, MASH, CV, sleep apnea, for GLP-1s were covered in Part D, so prescriber behavior has almost reflexively followed into the bridge. That is our job to influence and change. And Ed, maybe if you want to comment on the recent campaign launched with Wegovy pill. Absolutely, and I think you are right in mentioning the oral uptake and the opportunity that it represents. Our campaigns are very focused in and around Wegovy pill, knowing that most seniors prefer an oral administration. And we do believe that similar to what we have seen in the general market, patients will be more apt to ask for the pill once they know its availability. And so our campaigns feature very prominently the bridge program and the affordability that it represents for seniors. Great. Thank you very much. Rune? Thank you. Rune Dahl from DNB Carnegie. Emil, a question to you. You mentioned leadership in oral obesity, but when we look at consensus, then at least Eli Lilly has much higher sales going forward in oral. So leadership, is that in terms of sales, or how do you define it? That will be volume and value and keeping what we are delivering at the moment. That is definitely the plan. As Hong suggested, we see this as a segment that by the turn of the decade could be at least half of all volume in obesity care. Clear answer. Thank you so much. Sachin? Sachin, JPMorgan. For Emil, thanks for the details on the ex-U.S. rollout. Just a bit more color as to the markets that are coming from a telehealth perspective, are they more close to the U.K. or more close to Germany as we think about sort of speed of launches through 2027? Thank you. Good question. When we talk telehealth, really the powerful model is when it is fully integrated, so dispensing is also together with prescribing. The markets here that are big at the moment, that is the biggest U.K., it is Germany coming up, it is Australia, around 15% of the market in Australia. Let's call it 30% of the growth. New Zealand is really coming in as well. I am not giving you the markets, but I am telling you where we launch, but I am telling you that they could, of course, be interesting markets as well. China is also becoming bigger and bigger when it comes to telehealth. There are a number of other markets that are exploring this. One of the challenges telehealth companies have is that in emerging markets where it is possible from a regulatory perspective, but where prescriptions are not fully implemented, part of their offering is somewhat less relevant, and they have a difficult time competing with local pharmacies that also have scooter boys and girls that deliver, et cetera. So it is possible in some emerging markets, but I would have to say, we still need to see the models sort of work at scale in Brazil, in Mexico, in India, et cetera. But I gave you some of the big markets. We are also seeing more and more in some Scandinavian markets, particularly Sweden. In the very back. Thank you. Emmanuel Papadakis from Deutsche Bank. Question for Jamie, maybe on your latest thoughts around the future evolution of net pricing in the U.S. across the various sema presentations. Maybe you could give us some thoughts, both cash and commercial channel, and just any perspectives on where you are thinking about pricing CagriSema relative to sema at the time it launches. Thank you. High-level thoughts on pricing only and then on the channels. Yeah. Just high level on the channels. I truly believe that there needs to be a duality, in the U.S., both reimbursed and cash pay or self-pay channels. The self-pay ultimately provide a release valve for the cost trend, cost burden of the branded marketplace and the reimbursed. I think in terms of the future, I think there will always be viable channels, both reimbursed and self-pay, and they are not contradictions. In terms of pricing going forward, we will seek to, as I said, sustain net price viability moving forward. We will value price the innovation that we deliver to the market with input from multiple stakeholders. But it is our intent, obviously, to hold value where we can and where the assets allow for that through the value that they deliver to payers. Carsten? Yeah. Thank you very much. Carsten from Danske. I will just reiterate the question that I asked in the beginning that Michael referred to this session, about Ozempic and IRA pricing, and now that you have seen volumes shift to different channels. Maybe the net pricing you are seeing today is not as high as you expected when you first talked about IRA impact. Secondly, also on the Ozempic pill, where we have seen this very strong uptake. What is your assessment about cannibalization for Ozempic injectable franchise from this? Let's try to keep to one question, but if you can answer in very short, Jamie, on the second one. Yeah. In terms of Ozempic, as we've kind of suggested in your models from Q2 and previously, we see about a 10%-15% degradation in terms of the price trend. Year to date, it's been closer to 10%, but still that range is viable. Playing forward that range into the MFP and IRA impacts for 2027, that is a good glide path. Other than that, obviously, we don't guide on prices into 2027, but there's less of a, I'll say, the stairstep year to year, because of the current price degradation that you see in the category and with Ozempic as well. Thank you. It's Michael Leuchten from Jefferies. Jamie, question for you on the subscription programs. You said there's a 3, 6, and 12 months option. Do you have any color on what the split is? What do customers opt for? Yeah. It is tending toward the longer duration plans. Thank you for the question because it gives me the opportunity to say predominantly it's Ro to date. We're scaling at Ro as well, but also beyond Ro. The intent is to roll out subscription models throughout the telehealth network, and then also with the new functionality within NovoCare Pharmacy, we'll be able to tighter price, over time, implement the subscription model within that platform. Yeah. Pete, I think it is. Difficult to see. Thanks, Mike. Pete here from BNP Paribas. We spent a lot today talking about volume and about price. What about duration of treatment? Because to you guys standing up there, and us who have been following you over the years, it does not just seem to have budged anywhere from 6 to 8 months. So I realize maybe it is a bit too early to talk about Wegovy pill because we are only 9 months into the launch, but what do you think it is going to take for that duration part of the equation to start shifting? Maybe some comments both from the U.S. and also from IO. Yeah. One thing we have not talked so much about today, that is reimbursement, and here we are actually starting to get some real wins. You saw France coming in the other day. Here in the U.K., actually, we got very good access into a 1.2 million patient population at high risk of CV and a nice broad prescriber universe. Reimbursement does move the needle, and here is where we get to sort of the almost type 2 like kind of stay times closer to 2 years. That is what we have seen in Switzerland, which was one of the early movers in this space. The other is really telehealth. The best telehealth providers do a phenomenal job and can actually get close to 1 year in average stay time. What we see is then if patients gets past the first 6 months, the cohort does much, much better. This is where we also commercially, of course, work to align our interests with, for instance, telehealth providers. We benefit and we incentivize them to really do a great job of supporting the patients through that first titration stage. Yeah, and from a U.S. perspective, Peter, I'd say you're right. It's still early to close out a discussion on stay time, but the early indicators are strong. The real-world evidence that Ed shared, you don't get to that efficacy without adherence in the real world, as well as the subscription model clearly is encouraging patients to start and stay with by normalizing the monthly out-of-pocket burden. We'll continue to look at the usage over time in the stay time and report back on that. Take a final question. Yeah. Rajesh? Thank you very much. You clearly have a very interesting new channel consumer emerging. When you look at the demographics of patients who are being treated here, I'm pretty sure it must be slightly different, if not entirely different from the reimbursed channel. How do you think the persistence, compliance, titrating up, et cetera, will react to economic cycles and sensitivity in the future? Given that so many of your competitors are going to, in the next three years, come to the market with a similar offering, I'm pretty sure yours is much better, but at a time when prices become important in a weak economic cycle, how do you think the market would evolve in terms of pricing, adherence, persistence in your direct-to-consumer? Do you panic that you don't own these telehealth companies and direct relationships? So consumer behavior, and also something around segmentation and ownership of channels. I would point you back to Hong's very first slide today about the multiplicity of motivators for consumers in this disease state. If you have asymptomatic hypertension, it is one product category, one patient characteristic. There are so many. We showed three. There are thousands, right? So having a portfolio to play across that multiplicity of need is a huge benefit, and having a portfolio actually becomes a competitive advantage versus individual assets. So we have to segment and apportion each product and appeal to, as your question alluded, the reimbursed space, which may want higher BMI starting points, more challenging patient populations with comorbidities, and a cash pay, which will appeal to chronic patients, but also acute, recurrent, episodic use of these drugs for their own individual motivations. So I think that is what we are building and what we see in the consumer insights back. Demographic shift, then? Yes. Yep. Then Hong? In terms of BMI, in terms of comorbidities, in that respect. Great. Thank you very much. We will go into a small break before moving to the next sections. Definitely exciting around a festival of launches, product differentiation, and best-in-class product and launch for the Wegovy pill and what to come. Thank you very much. [Break] [Presentation] All right. I hope you are ready for some manufacturing. At least in manufacturing, we need to be ready to support the growth ambitions that we saw from Jamey and Emil, but also the ambitions from Martin to accelerate and diversify our pipeline. In manufacturing, we are confident that we have the capacity scale, and also the efficiency to do that in an attractive way over the coming years, not least because of the large investments that we have been through on the CapEx side over the past years. I will just start the presentation with a small video demonstrating the progress in a couple of the largest projects in our CapEx program. If we can have the video, please. [Presentation] All right, so what you saw in this video was Kalundborg. Some of you may have seen Kalundborg as part of the Capital Markets Day two years ago, where there was a visit to PP5 line 1, which you also saw in the video here. Earlier this year, we had that first line validated, and it has now been approved by the authorities, adding significant capacity to our network. In Clayton, which you also saw, we are progressing according to our plans with our fill-finish expansions. Right next door, we also have our API manufacturing facility, which has been ramped up over the past couple of years. Last year, that facility alone delivered five times the design capacity of the original plans, and we are on track this year to actually get to more than six times design capacity, and with even more to come in the future years. We also have very large expansions going on our other sites. Three of the main ones you see on this slide. We have Hillerød, where we both expand for API for our blood disorders franchise and cardiovascular diseases in a flexible way in some of the same facilities, and we are expanding fill-finish also in Hillerød. In France and Brazil, we are continuing to expand our fill-finish network to get ready for future volumes, and also to renew our network in terms of state-of-the-art fill-finish isolator technologies powered by AI. Of course, capacity is not enough. We need to adapt our strategy to the new competitive environment that Mike was also alluding to in his introduction. We are in the process of doing so with very good results so far. We have competition kicking in. We also have new customer dynamics requiring different variants, different device formats, new type of channels that we need to cater for. We have new requirements coming from the diversification of the R&D pipeline, and of course also geopolitics to take into consideration to ensure supply resilience. All of that is part of our new fast-to-customer strategy coming from manufacturing, and we believe we are well set up to deliver in this new environment. Of course, partly based on the scale that we have from our network. I will remind you when we are talking market share developments, et cetera, that we are still by volume the largest manufacturer of both insulins and GLP-1s in the industry, with 41% and 51% volume market share respectively. That scale is also turned into productivity through an engine of internal engineering and process optimization that we have been developing continuously over the past decades. I started in manufacturing 24 years ago. Already at that time, we had a quite mature engine of process optimization that drove a large part of the COGS 20% journey that we were on in the zeros. That is now being accelerated even further, also powered by AI. We are confident with our program that that can maintain a very healthy productivity journey ahead of us. At the same time deliver on the same quality levels that we have seen historically. Of course, new pipeline assets also require different modalities, and that is why we are expanding into new modalities. We are also going into synthetic manufacturing, in a combination of partnerships, but also with internal capability building, most predominantly by our acquisition of the Petersburg site in the U.S. that has added a lot of capabilities recently. That flexibility will cater well for the growth in commercial, but also to the pipeline expansion that Martin alluded to. We have been reorganizing as part of our strategy to be closer with research and development to anticipate what does it call for from us, both upstream in the early asset development, and since the launch of Martin's strategy, we have been able to cater for the needs, not just for product going into clinical trials, but also for process development, so that we mature our processes and get them ready by the time that we are in an accelerated way getting to market with our assets. So we feel that we are ready with the five-year ambition also going through to submission, but we also have a focus on how we are ready through submission and approval to ramp up our capacities on the other side of approvals. And some of the things you see on the right-hand side of the slide is a testimony of our ability to adjust to that requirement. It was shared already that we were able, at the time of launch of the Wegovy pill, to have product available at pharmacies throughout the U.S., and we are aiming for the same in IO countries when we are launching there. We will do the same as we are launching Awiqli across more than 40 countries in the coming 12 months. Despite an uptake that also positively surprised us, we have been able to follow that demand development in a way that still leaves us confident that we can continue expanding into IO, as Emil was alluding to, with more than 20 countries launching over the next 12 months. All of that also powered by AI in our process development in order to mature as we are expanding to new disease areas as well. How you should think about our network going forward is that in addition to the legacy platforms that we have had in the network for decades, we have recently added in our new modalities with tablets in our new formats, significant capacity that enables us to be flexible across the different modalities. Going forward, we will double down continuously on yeast. Yeast-based fermentation, recovery, and purification is a competitive advantage of ours. We have seen also, as we have explored options for synthetic manufacturing, that we are by far the most cost-effective producer in the industry, according to all the data that we have been able to gather. It comes with the production process. Even other players that might have yeast-based production typically have fit batch production systems, where you add the ingredients into the tanks and you do your fermentation, but then you have to close the batch afterwards. Whereas we have found a way to continuously produce and take out broth, send it through recovery and purification. That is giving us immense edge in terms of cost effectiveness. Also downstream, you heard about the deal with Emisphere giving us the SNAC technology that has given us a unique competitive edge in terms of how we can put peptides into orals, even larger ones, without having them degraded in the gastrointestinal system and get through to the body for high efficacy, and we will leverage that going forward. So those two areas are areas that we are doubling down on. For the other areas, synthetic peptides, injectables, and other platforms, we are focused more on flexibility by having capabilities in-house, but also having external partnerships to help us address different demands as they become more volatile in future years in a way that doesn't expose us cost-wise. The same in terms of cost exposure, we also focused on in terms of geography, with geopolitical developments making that even more important. In terms of API manufacturing, we are concentrated in Denmark and the U.S. We want the concentration because that's also how we can accelerate our optimization program. As we are coming to our fill-finish networks, we are geographically more dispersed, closer to the markets where we are selling. That's more effective. It also lowers our exposure in terms of geopolitical developments. And specifically for the U.S., we have been committed to the U.S. market for decades. Over the past 10 years, we have accelerated our commitments. We hear a lot of companies talking about their commitments to the U.S. these years. What you see here is what we have actually invested over the past 10 years, more than $10 billion. With already committed investments for the next 2 years, taking us above $12 billion. Add to that our partnerships with another couple of billion DKK of U.S. partners, also adding employment and of course, footprint. We now have 5 manufacturing sites across the States, which are also translating into a full U.S.-to-U.S. supply chain for our Wegovy pill. In terms of orals, we have a strategy on 3 legs in terms of how we think not just about our supply for Wegovy pill, but also for our full pipeline of orals coming through development. In the upstream API, we talked about CapEx, we talked about PP5 kicking in, but we are also exploring and developing further partnerships externally that will give us the flexibility to scale rapidly, depending on how demand is evolving over the coming couple of years. But also downstream, in our tableting manufacturing, I will remind you that it is not new to us to do tablets. We have done semaglutide tablets since 2019 in our Copenhagen facility in Måløv. That, again, was building off on almost 50 years of tableting experience within our women's health franchise, HRT. We can see that we have been evolving our capabilities over the years, especially now that we are adding capabilities from the outside, for instance, with our Alkermes acquisition that we announced earlier this year in Ireland, and which will add capacity and sufficient capacity to the network to follow what we are scaling up on the API side. Of course, also supported in the U.S. with our Durham scale-up. All of that combined gives us the opportunity, as Mike was alluding to get to 10 times the number of patients that we are treating today. We are very confident that we will get to at least that level by 2030. Of course, that is only attractive commercially if it is also attractive from a cost perspective, and that is why the third leg in our strategy is to continuously work on lowering the price of an already effective manufacturing setup. We have a program in place to do so, and that leaves us confident that by 2030, we will be able to maintain our margins broadly stable compared to what they are today, despite the price erosions that has also been alluded to earlier today. We do that through continued API optimizations with the engine that I was talking about, which we are seeing is accelerating, but it is also through formulation upgrades. We have new generations of our SNAC technology coming through, increasing bioavailability and hence lowering the need for API in our manufacturing. And in our fill-finish network in particular, of course, we are also on an ongoing basis ensuring that we are rightsizing the network in order to stay productive across our network. So as we look into the coming couple of years, in addition to our cost optimization programs within our existing network, we are of course also cautious in terms of how much depreciation load we are coming in with from our CapEx investments, and we are confident that we can sustain the growth trajectory that we saw in the strategy without adding too much extra CapEx. Actually, we have committed to having last year as the peak year, and this year we will get below 55 billion DKK in CapEx, and we will see a continued reduction getting closer to industry level CapEx to sales by 2030. Still with the opportunity to support the growth ambitions commercially and in R&D. So I hope this leaves you with a flavor of our confidence from manufacturing to support growth while reducing CapEx to sales, and maintaining our margins broadly stable over the coming couple of years. But I'll let Carsten allude a bit more to that on the financial side. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Kasper. That's a really nice segue to the CFO. Lower CapEx and productivity and a strong gross margin. So thank you for that, and great to see you all here this afternoon. This is the last presentation, then we move into Q&A, so hang in here. Now, I'm trying to take the gist of all the presentations, all the strategies and plans that have been very nicely laid out by my colleagues, and then articulate that in a financial manner. So first, before we look ahead then, I think it's important that we just stabilize and then say, "So where did we come from?" And when we look back for the past four years or so, then we've been through a period of hypergrowth. So we more than doubled the company in four years' time. We tripled our investments into R&D in that period of time, and we scaled CapEx by 10X. So really, a period of hypergrowth that, of course, put the company into a totally different league. So unfortunately, growth has come down and now the reality is that we're looking into lower growth already where we are this year. So what we're looking at, as Mike Doustdar explained earlier today, is that we're looking at an industry which is growing mid-single digits measured CAGR from this year until 2030. And our aim is to grow at the same pace as the industry, so mid-single digits. So where does the growth come from? It's actually fairly simple. It comes from three main drivers for Novo as a company. The first driver you heard about, that's all Wegovy. The Wegovy tablet we just heard from manufacturing, scaling 10x compared to where we are today, 1.5 million patients on the Wegovy tablet today. We have the capacity to roll out. Then you heard from Emil that he is just getting started right now. Only three markets and many more to come. Jamie and Ed are also just getting started in the U.S. in terms of penetrating the markets. The Wegovy tablet, the runway we have there is one of the key drivers for growth until 2030. That is number one. Number two is our pipeline in diabetes and obesity. Let me just remind you what you heard earlier. CagriSema, we have PDUFA late this year, so launch early next year, knock on wood. We have cagrilintide, we have cagrilintide mono, we have zenagamtide later in the period. We have a whole string of launches in diabetes and obesity, CagriSema in diabetes also. That is the second driver. Then the third driver is our blockbuster launches in blood and endocrine and even liver. You heard from Habib on FREHEMGO. Now we got the positive opinion from Europe just now, and we are awaiting PDUFA from the FDA. Starting to launch FREHEMGO, clearly a multi-blockbuster potential product, and later on, etavopivat. Then towards the end of the period, towards 2030, we are looking at efroxifermin that you heard about from Martin and Hong. A whole string of pipeline launches, Wegovy tablet, and then of course, our in-line portfolio in the market. Some offset through price and LOE in some markets, as you also heard about. Net net, we aspire to drive mid-single growth, mid-single digit growth CAGR-wise towards 2030. The lower growth, of course, comes on the backdrop of hypergrowth. As a consequence, exactly a year ago, or like a year and 10 days ago, we launched a major transformation program. You heard about it from Mike. A year ago, we announced 9,000 people being laid off by the company. That is not something we do lightly. It is the biggest ever in Novo Nordisk. It is the biggest ever in Denmark. Doing that was no fun at all. What we have done on the back of that, through tight management of the company, is actually getting us to 13,000 employees lower today compared to a year ago, and this is end of August. Even lower compared to end of first half. Tight management to drive an efficient organization, and on top of that, all our indirect spend, we really scrutinize with procurement, efficiencies, et cetera, in order to invest in our growth options I covered before. Of course, drive productivity with an increasing revenue per employee that you see on the right-hand side, which has gone up almost 50% and we see continuing to go up. Then how do we then allocate our resources and our capital for the coming years? It really takes a starting point in our corporate strategy you heard this morning. Strengthen and expand our core, build future growth engines, and explore consumer Rx. Clearly the majority of our resources will be going into the core. They are already going into the core. They will continue to do so. But as you heard earlier today, we need to build further growth engines, blood and endocrine, liver diseases, cardiovascular diseases. We are investing in those areas, mainly in R&D, but of course also in the launches that you heard about in blood and endocrine. Then finally Consumer Rx. This is a smaller bet in financial terms right now. We need to prove some opportunities we see in R&D, as Martin alluded to. Then as we see those opportunities pan out, of course, we are going to invest hard behind that to drive growth. The reason why we do so, and we look for those future growth engines is, as you heard this morning, it is about creating a bigger company in 2035 compared to what we are today. That is not only done by diabetes and obesity. There we need the additional growth engines. So in short, invest in R&D to grow and diversify the pipeline, invest in our growth brands, and then scale capacity to execute on that. So allow me to do this and go through the resource allocation line by line. The first one you just heard from manufacturing, from Kasper. We have a gross margin around 80%, and when we look at the gross margin and how that works out towards 2030, our aim is to keep it broadly stable. There are pushes and pulls. So on the negative side, we do see lower prices of our biggest products, and we do see depreciations of the CapEx program we have been running. So to offset that, we really focus on driving optimizations, as you heard, both in our supply network, in process yields, as well as new and better formulations of our SNAC platform, and then a lot of AI across the board. SG&A, I think here it is really important also to look back. We scaled SG&A for massive growth over the last five years or so. But at the same time, we grew SG&A at a lower pace than our top line. So we have taken our SG&A ratio down from 29% to 23% over the past four or five years. What we are looking into over the coming period towards 2030 is to take the SG&A ratio further down. We still aim to increase absolute SG&A, but we see the ratio coming down closer to that of the industry around 20%. The way we do that is really to drive a lot of efficiencies, both front office and back office, through AI and just general optimization of go-to-market. Jamey was talking to the NovoCare platform and how we drive productivity and efficiency on that platform. But it is not only about efficiencies and productivity, it is also about really investing in the key growth opportunities we have as a company. I spoke about the growth levers in blood and endocrine, potentially in liver later in the period, and then of course being competitive in obesity. So we are not saving at the expense of top-line growth. We really want to drive top-line growth and the mid-single digits towards 2030 CAGR. All right, R&D, as I said before, we scaled that by 3x over the past four years or so. And if you look at the ratio, then we took the R&D ratio from just below 13% R&D to sales to 17% last year. What we are looking into for the coming years towards 2030 is to continue to expand R&D at a faster pace compared to top line, because we want to build a bigger company by 2035 compared to where we are today. You heard earlier today about the risk-adjusted pipeline value of late-stage assets of around 250 billion DKK. The task is with these investments into R&D that we want to further build the 150 billion and exceed that by progressing our early-stage assets to PD and put that into a pipeline so we are bigger and stronger company in 2035 compared to what we are today. So when we put all that together and say, what does that translate into in terms of operating margin, then the starting point is, and you see that on the left-hand side, when you compare our operating margin to that of the industry, we have one of the strongest operating margins in the industry. So that is our point of departure today. What we aim for the period until 2030 is to maintain a broadly stable operating margin, and the way we are going to do that is a lot of efficiencies in manufacturing. So broadly stable gross margin, continue to invest in R&D, and then optimize SG&A to neutralize the R&D investments on a ratio basis. So net net, broadly stable operating margin by 2030. There may be yearly fluctuations depending on pipeline progressions and how that works out, but by 2030, our ambition is broadly stable operating margin compared to today. But then you would say, "Hey, Carsten, that is only accounting. What we care about is cash flow." So what happens to cash flow? The ones of you who have followed us for a long time know that we have a long history of strongly converting our earnings into cash. What you see on the left-hand side is that over the preceding four years, we also more than doubled our cash flow from operations. With an ambition to deliver mid-single digits top line growth for the coming period at a stable operating margin, you should expect our cash flow from operations to continue to expand. Then put on top of that with manufacturing, we have passed the peak on CapEx, so we are going from a CapEx to sales ratio of around 20% last year towards an industry level of mid-single digits CapEx to sales ratio by 2030. That yields a very, very attractive gearing in terms of cash flow generation towards 2030. What are we going to do with the free cash flow? Here we come into our capital allocation, which has been discussed also earlier today. So our starting point on capital allocation is first and foremost, invest in the company where we see attractive investment opportunities according to the strategy laid out earlier today. So that is a starting point. The second point is return capital to our owners, to our investors. We have a long history of delivering an attractive dividend per share. You see that on the right-hand side, 31 years and counting of increasing dividend per share. Our starting point is really return around half of our profits to our shareholders. That has yielded a very nice dividend per share trajectory for now 31 years and counting. Thirdly, invest in pipeline, invest in BD, which has also been discussed earlier today. When you look at what we've done over the last five years, then the BD investments over the last five years have been far greater than any time earlier in the 100-year history of the company. It was more or less non-existing just five, seven years ago. So we've really ramped up our efforts in BD and we'll continue to do so in the coming years provided that we find attractive targets that fits our strategy. I'll come back to that. Finally, excess cash we return to our shareholders through the form of share buyback. So if you layer share buyback and dividends together over the last five years, then in combination dividend plus share buyback the last five years, we returned 270 billion DKK to our shareholders. So massive cash generation and significant capital return to our owners. Talking about business development, you heard about it earlier today. The strategy is a build-on approach focused on building a stronger, broader, more diversified pipeline, to drive future growth of the company. The way we assess it is strategic fit to our strategy. Do we like the science? Finally, do we find the financials reasonable in what we're looking at? Can we afford it? Yes, we can. The starting point is the cash flow generation I showed you before. Beyond that, when you look at our balance sheet, then we have one of the lowest gearings in the industry in terms of net debt to EBITDA. As you saw end of last year, 0.7, so one of the lowest in the industry. As a consequence, our credit rating is top 3 in the industry, which is really important when we are out taking on debt in terms of new bond offerings. So our cost of capital in the debt markets is really attractive with ratings like this. So that covers the financial presentation. In summary, mid-single digit CAGR sales growth towards 2030 at a stable operating margin, investing in pipeline through R&D and business development, and expanding our free cash flow and maintaining an attractive dividend per share. So that's a short story on financials. With that, I'd like to invite Michael and Kasper on stage for Q&A. Thank you, Carsten, and thank you, Kasper. Lots of stuff happening on the manufacturing side and tight financial control as well. Simon? It is not on. You will get a new one. Chris is running. There we go. That is better. Simon Baker from Rothschild & Co Redburn. Just returning to pretty much the last thing you said there, Carsten, on the growth CAGR from 2026 to 2030. You put the slide up showing the headwinds and the tailwinds, and some of the headwinds and tailwinds have clearly different visibility. So there is a lot more visibility on pricing as a headwind. There is a lot less visibility on volume as a tailwind because the whole elasticity of demand thing is still being worked out. Is that level of visibility reflected in that number? I am basically angling, is that mid-single digit growth number necessarily conservative because of the different visibilities of the price and volume over that period? Thank you. Yeah, Simon, thanks for that question. That's, of course, also when talking about a CAGR until 2030, you have pulls and pulls in a CAGR like that. One thing is just the underlying market fundamentals that you allude to. Put on top of that, uncertainties regarding pipeline products and commercialization of pipeline products. You could say we worked with a number of scenarios, including price elasticity and volumes and uptake and also realistic uptake of our pipeline products. We put all that together and then we said, in summary, it's reasonable to expect, based on our full knowledge today, that we should be able to grow the company by mid-single digits CAGR towards 2030. Richard? Hi, thanks. Obviously one of the key drivers is the CagriSema launch and obviously the oral rollout. Just thinking about the proportionality of those key drivers to your top line growth. With regard to CagriSema, just thinking about that full launch, how much of a full launch is it? Is it all channels? How do you position the product across in the commercial oral place and also into the KOL doctor-led? Just positioning and how much proportion is CagriSema in the launch, in the growth curve? Yeah. First and foremost, if I start with the modeling, CagriSema is important. I laid out three main growth drivers. Again, Wegovy pill, our pipeline products in diabetes and obesity, and then our pipeline products in our other therapeutic categories. We're talking about the second category, and CagriSema as a product comes first, that's of course one of the stronger gearings we get in generating the CAGR. The short story in terms of our launch plan is all in across all channels. We invested all in for Kasper in manufacturing. We built the full supply chain network. You can see a very nice device outside the door. Then we're going all in across channels, and you should also expect us to launch in several geographies over the period. In terms of more specific positioning and so on, I think we should save that question for the full panel Q&A coming up in 10 minutes. Yes, there is a panel coming up. In the back. Sino? Great, thanks. It is Graham Parry at Citi. Just when we are thinking about the growth drivers there, when you think about Wegovy pill and the geographic split of International Operations versus the U.S., should we be thinking that this several years out would look like the same kind of mix as Wegovy injectable? Is that the right sort of analog to use? Or is supply still going to mean the two-third supply market, mean that it will by definition be a bigger product in the U.S. proportionally than Wegovy injectable was at peak? Thanks, Graham. As I understand it, we can also save some of that for the panel in terms of exact split, but more generally speaking, Kasper, how you are sort of readying for additional launches outside of the U.S. So what I hope became clear from our presentation is that we have found avenues to really ramp up for our oral launches, maybe also more than what has been the narrative out there. And we are very confident, as you could see also in Emil's presentation, that we will be able to support going to a much broader expansion into IO over even the short to medium term. Sachin? Sachin Jain, Bank of America. CapEx question. You sort of commented in your presentation that you have got visibility on the cost differential versus other players. I wonder if you could just touch on that. And the question really comes to the level of confidence your CapEx moat in 2031. Do you still believe in that or not? Because it was not really mentioned as a protection post anyone, it was more price come down, volume lost. Just some color on that would be helpful. Thank you. Casper? Yeah. As I mentioned, we have gained significant insight into the structural advantage of our yeast-based fermentation platform vis-à-vis the synthetic manufacturing that we are typically seeing also coming through on competition. I do not think it is argued by anyone that it is, by not a small margin, we cannot allude exactly to the type of margin, but we are much more cost effective when you compare different peptides, apples to apples. That leaves us very confident, especially because we have in our platform flexibility to swap between some of the different products coming through our pipeline. They are not needing to be fully dedicated. We have an optimization program that we are also confident will even let us stay ahead of the curve as we are going in also beyond the decade. So yeah, we are confident in our competitive advantage in that area. If I can just add one comment to Kasper's explanation. Of course, the moat is most significant in the tablet space. With the bioavailability and the required API, for instance, the Wegovy tablets, the amount of API and the CapEx required to get to that magnitude of API, you have just seen our CapEx numbers, then it is a significant investment and financial bet that anyone would have to take to get into the Wegovy tablet. Then layer on that to Mike's earlier presentation, that we actually do have formulation patents for the Wegovy tablet. Now we are on our second generation and more generations to come. So especially on the tablet, quite significant moat. Naresh? Thanks. Should we look at the near-term investments in Wegovy pill, Cagri, and the accelerations and clinical trial starts? Should we think of 2027 as an investment year as you try to diversify away from Novo? Well, just looping back to what I said then, first and foremost, our ambition is to drive mid-single-digit CAGR growth until 2030. Unless we get going as fast as possible, then that gets harder and harder. So expect us to lean in to push growth drivers as hard as we can. But at the same time, you have the controlling measure with the margin being broadly stable in our commitments. Specifically for 2027, I am not going to comment today on that. I look forward to guide about that in February. So we will be coming back to that then. Seamus? Thanks. Carsten, I guess one of the questions that I have is not about necessarily the scalability of the supply, but the durability of the assets beyond 2030. I know you are not providing guidance, but you have provided a framework for how to think about 2035. So can you help us understand what is the most durable part of the semaglutide franchise? Is it the evolving SNAC technology that is going to draw those assets and Wegovy pill out farther than anticipated? Because when we have asked this question before, we have been told stick to 2031, 2032, and it does not feel like that is possible given 150 billion DKK from the pipeline, and the very large circle that you guys put up there for 2035. So just trying to get a little bit more color on how we should be thinking about that. It does seem like the SNAC technology is your advantage. Yeah. So first and foremost, the nature of this industry is that we have to renew ourselves every 10, 15 years. That is kind of the contract with society, that patents run out and then competition comes in, and that is why we need to, at pace, renew ourselves. In terms of stickiness of the sema franchise, I would put it in a couple of categories. So first and foremost, regardless, we are going to defend vigorously what we have with Ozempic and Wegovy injectable. Prices will come down. That is what we see in Canada. But as you heard from Emil, we are fighting to keep as much volume as we can, and we have a lot of experience in that space also from our insulin days. And you can see that over the last 10 years. So that is one piece. The second piece is, as we spoke about on our oral franchise, I think it is a harder franchise for competitors to get into due to the reasons I mentioned before with unit costs, CapEx requirements, and patents. I would not issue 100% guarantees, but I think we have a stronger protection in that space. Then finally, with CagriSema, and we have seen some wonderful data today, with REDEFINE 9 and REIMAGINE 5 with the CagriSema and the combo of amylin. There we are into late 2037 with the amylin compound patent. So there we also have nice durability. But I would say on top of that clearly will have pressure linked to LOE, and as a consequence, that is why we are pushing so hard on resourcing R&D and doing BD to expand 150 billion DKK that we see today in risk-adjusted pipeline. All right. I think that was a really good summary, and we are sort of approaching also the final panel debate. So Kasper scaling like there was no tomorrow, and Karsten also clearly with ambitions for the company also to grow both midterm and then, of course, also obviously towards the next decade. So with that, I will thank you for this session, and then I will ask Mike and all the rest of the EVPs to join the stage, and then we will do a final panel Q&A on the day. All right. Thank you very much for hanging in, and we are going towards the last stretch. I would also, besides the familiar faces you have already seen during today on the stage, I would also like to welcome two other EVPs. Tania Sabroe at the very far right, it must be, EVP for People, Organization, and Corporate Affairs. Also here on my left side, Thilde Hummel Bøgebjerg, who is EVP for Enterprise IT and Quality. Before we kick off the full session on Q&A, maybe I can just ask a few questions to you on stage. Tilde, first to you. Welcome to stage. One of the things we have seen is that AI has moved from being a topical theme to going all in across organizations. What is the biggest change you are seeing to AI in Novo? Also, what would you like the investors to be able to see when we come back for the next CMD that has really happened to technology adoption at Novo? Yeah. Thank you very much, Michael. As you have heard today, our AI strategy is fairly ambitious, but it is not an AI strategy on the side. It is really built into our business goals, targets, and our corporate strategy. We will push really hard towards productivity, but we also have some big bets, big focus area where we will invest, where it really matters, going into supporting a broader and more faster-moving R&D pipeline. At the next CMD, I am pretty sure you will see that quite a good part of our core processes has been completely redefined. We have really been thinking not only kind of squeezing out our core processes where we are going to go from A to B, but really redefining how we do it with AI in the center. Great. Thank you very much, Tilde. To you, Tanja. Strategy, I would say, is only as effective as the ability to execute on it in the organization. We've undergone a lot of change in Novo in the last two years. What has been the most difficult mindset and behavior to change? As the question to Tilde, what do you hope that investors will be able to see from that culture change going into the next CMD? Yeah. Thanks, Michael. You saw both Karsten and Mike talk to the leaning of the organization that we have done over the last 12 months. We came from being a successful, large, but also rather complex organization. In the last one to two years, we have really focused on effectiveness, on the leaning part, but also on simplicity in our structures, in our governance, and in how fast we are able to make decisions. I think that move is something we are still working on, and of course, it's all with the aim of executing on the strategy, but also on competing for the next 10 years in new markets and also in the consumer space. Those are fast and rapid changes for the organization and for our people as a whole. You can measure us when we come back to the next CMD to see if the transformation has worked, and that will be on basically measuring whether we are living up to our targets and the ambitions that we have presented today. Very clear, and also leaning on the competitiveness in the organization. With that and 25 minutes to go, plenty of room for all the remaining burning questions. I will do my best to allocate. It is not that easy to see from up here, but I have colleagues going around with microphones. Remaining questions. Florent, I see you in the back. Thank you very much. Florent Cespedes from Oddo BHF. A question on M&A. As there is a strong cash flow generation and also a low gearing, could you consider to go big and to acquire products, assets which are already on the market? To Mike, I would hand the question, maybe also Karsten with some follow-ups. I would not rule it out. Yes. Carsten? I think nothing more to add. Nothing more to add. But the strategy is still bolons for the time being. Next question, Thibault? Thank you. Thibault with Morgan Stanley. Just a quick question on the U.S. market. One thing we haven't spoken about too much today is compounders and the competition from compounders. So I guess the question is what is backing your assumption for mid-single digit growth to the end of the decade in terms of what compounders will do? If you could give us a bit of color on what's happening now in terms of volume and anything you can see with your intelligence. Is this just a fixture of the U.S. market and are they here to stay, and is that your expectation? Thank you. I'll give it to Mike first, and then maybe Jamie can elaborate a bit more. Yeah. I think as you have seen, the compounders and their financial impact has gotten less and less on our business, and we are speaking actually much less to them for a couple of reasons. One, because a number of them have decided to start selling the real products rather than the compounded version of them. Two, with the prices coming down, the incentive from the buyers has become much, much less, I would say, than what it was 2 years ago. And we have seen quite a bit of success with that, but this continues, and we continue, of course, putting pressure, making sure that everyone understands that at these prices, there is really no reason to move to compounding. And I think the team in the U.S. continues to be quite successful in those dialogues, and maybe you want to mention. Yeah, just to add, this is not just a GLP-1 or a sector issue for a couple of companies. This is industrial threat to the patented R&D-based industry. The idea that compounders can put products on the market that are not even, in some cases, FDA approved yet. So we continue to work with the U.S. government, increasing the pressure, and ultimately, our ask is to eliminate inauthentic API importation into the U.S. But as Mike said, the market evolution has also kind of alleviated some of the initial motivations. Obviously, our sustainable supply has relieved one of those motivators, our pricing another. So we continue to see less of the compounded market reflecting semaglutide compounding. And Carsten? Yeah. To Bo, just adding that into our top-line ambitions, you should hear what Mike and Jamey just articulated, as it is an upside to our ambitions in case the U.S. regulators close down compounding in the U.S. So we have no upside big into our numbers. Or if some of the larger ones decide to join us. Yes. Great. Kerry? Thank you very much for the overview today. It has been great. My question, I bring us back to business development, please. Should we assume you are only going to consider business development opportunities that align with your existing therapeutic areas of focus, obesity, diabetes, blood and endocrine, and maybe cardiovascular as well? Or will you consider TAs outside those focus areas? And maybe linked to that, you talked a little about the consumer opportunity. Again, are you looking to stay within your existing therapeutic areas of focus for that, or is that an area you could go more broadly? Yeah. As I mentioned earlier, now we have set the strategy quite clearly where we are going to operate, both be it in core, some of the new growth engines, so blood, liver, and CV. But we also have the exploration of the consumer area where the consumer demand, strong demand, meets prescription medication. In all of those areas in our slides, we actually had a reference to business development. Making sure that first and foremost, we start with what we have in-house, but when there is a strategic and/or a scientific gap, we actually go outside and look for interesting assets and bolting on those to what we do. So you should see BD activities and search in our core, in the middle area of new growth drivers, CV, liver, and blood disorders, but also in the consumer Rx area. Great. Thomas? Yes, thank you. Thomas Barth from ABG. I just wanted to follow up on Amylin 355 you discussed earlier here. I understood that you expect this to be similar on efficacy and tolerability to CagriSema. I am just curious to hear your comments on the PK profile. Is this also similar to CagriSema on peak to trough and T max, C max? Then if I can squeeze in just on how you see the merits of DACRAs compared to selective amylin, given the recent clinical data. Thank you. Yeah, on the last question, I do not think there is anyone who can give you a clear answer today. This is why we specifically built a pipeline that caters to both the amylin side, the calcitonin side, but also the DACRAs side, because we clearly need to figure out is there differentiation in terms of driving efficacy versus the tolerability. Having more than one shot on goal is obviously a way to mitigate the risk. What we have seen with Amylin 355 is the possibility to deliver a once-daily tablet. That should make you think that the half-life is probably more like the Awiqli injectable products, because that basically caters to a really, really nice peak to trough. We are not going into details at this point, but we are happy with what we have seen. Pete? Thanks, Freddy. Pete Verdult, BNP Paribas. Just a quick one for Mike or Martin, just on the zaltinibar. Is there any scope or intention to file that as a BLA or would that be an NDA? Martin? That will be a BLA. It's a fairly large molecule, so it will be a BLA, is the intent. Quick question, quick answer. That was good. Simon? Thank you. This is a fairly big-picture question, but it's one that gets asked a lot and generates a huge amount of debate, and that's around the semaglutide LOE in the U.S. between those that think that the new generation of products would move people off it, to those that think it not only kills your obesity franchise, but it kills everybody's obesity franchise. It would just be good to get your perspectives on how big the cliff is in 2031, 2032, to the extent that you will have presumably moved a lot of people onto CagriSema, Wegovy pill, and amycretin. What does the bit on the other side look like in terms of the residual semaglutide there? Because this is slightly different because it's a branded category as well. How much does that keep product in the same way that Tylenol is a billion-dollar product 50 years after it went off the patent. Thank you. Jamie and Mike, perhaps, and then also maybe me adding some comments also on how we see it in IO. Jamie? Just in answer the way you phrased it from a macro LOE environment. We are students and will continue to be students of the peri-LOE analogs in the market, and there is a lot to learn from past precedent. All sorts of strategic and tactical ways to compete in the peri-LOE period, through price, through LOE tactics like private label, et cetera. So lots of examples over the last 5-8 years, looking at Humira, adalimumab, as an example. Looking at the respiratory space, where companies have preserved volume over time, not experiencing the dramatic cliff, maybe as evidenced all the way back to atorvastatin and Lipitor in the U.S. As you said, it is our goal to get as much volume in the pipeline assets as possible before the LOE, and we think we have the assets to do that, and then we will, as Mike laid out this morning, compete for volume. I think as semaglutide goes LOE, it would be amazing the receptivity of payers for access, which opens up opportunities to present the new innovation in targeted subpopulations because the value valve release will be there for the third-party payer. So I think we could be talking about competing in a much larger volume market with selective offerings in targeted subpopulations that command better prices. Yeah, I do not have much more to add. I think you covered it. I can maybe say on Europe, to Carsten's point, the more we can shift to oral, the better, the bigger the moat. Particularly also in the cash channel, where we will be competitive on production cost, but where branding also matters and trust. That is an important shift. The more innovation we can get also on convenience and stay time and muscle preservation, the more that will also lend itself to a strong market share position beyond LOE in the cash channel. When it comes to the reimbursed play, here we could see a future where there will be step throughs, just like we have seen in the insulin space. That it will be patients who are not well-controlled with comorbidities that lend themselves particularly to some of the innovations that are then upgraded to future generations. So that would probably be a more segmented market from that perspective. Maybe I will add something. If you try to use a bit our insulin business as a proxy and look at it globally, then you see that today we still sell a lot of human insulin. We are the biggest generic insulin maker in the world. We do not sell them in U.S., typically, we do not sell them in Europe, but we sell them around the world, and it is a very large volume and somewhat okay-ish value, albeit not super exciting. We have been able to, over the period, to upgrade our insulins to better and better version of it. We are just in the middle of, by the way, reinventing ourselves with Awiqli and Kyinsu that Emil touched upon selectively in various different markets. While in other markets, human insulin continues to actually stay and sometimes even grow. If you think about semaglutide, you could see it as standard of care in 2035 in number of places that still at a relatively lower price, people are buying it, and it is standard of care. As Jamey already said, I cannot see that in a big way in a place like U.S. On the other hand, I remind you, we have a better semaglutide. It is called cagri semaglutide, that goes much longer in its patent. So if I was just a patient today on a semaglutide in U.S., and someone would come and tell me there is a better version of that available, I would seriously consider that. That is just one asset. We have multiple others, and then of course we have the oral as well. So this is how we see this, and there are major price differentiations available. Just because metformin existed in reduction of HbA1c at minimum price, nothing, did not stop people going and buying out of pocket often an Ozempic at 30 times more, which also reduced HbA1c initially. You have to little bit look at that from a segment, and that's why you need all these different assets. Maybe I can also add a point. There's sometimes a discussion around telehealth in Europe. Would they just be interested in running with the generics? But in Europe, as most of you will know, patients don't like paying for a consultation. They're not used to that from the healthcare system. Most of these telehealth providers also have a business model that's based on the markups on the products. They will also have a strong interest in providing better care, selling products with a longer stay time and lifetime value, et cetera. The more the market moves towards high-quality online providers, the more we'll also have support for a more quality offering with the newest products. In the back. Emmanuel De Bi. Thanks. Two questions. Just a follow-up, really. Maybe you can give us a sense of what proportion, approximately in percentage terms, of the semaglutide franchise you think you can switch off semaglutide by the time of LOE? Then maybe just help frame expectations a little for the CagriSema launch. Mike, you've talked pretty consistently about your expectations being ahead of ours. So how much do you think you can convert semaglutide into CagriSema over the next year or two? How fast do we expect that to launch in the near future? Thank you. So high level, if we take the launch first in the U.S., Jamie, on high level, without providing specific numbers. Yeah. We won't provide conversion statistics on an annual or two-year basis, but I go back to Mike's opening remarks. More than five mega blockbusters over the period. So that gives you a sense of the expansion, and also within that, some degree of conversion. Carsten. Thank you. Carsten from Danske. Emil, I guess this is a question to you. Looking a little bit about the performance in the U.K. market after you launched the Wegovy 7.2 milligram. Why aren't you focusing much more on 7.2 in the IO, considering that this has apparently lifted your market share by 17 percentage points since you first published data there? I couldn't be more focused on it because, of course, I have 35 launches before the end of the year across IO. So when we have the regulatory opportunity, we launch. In some markets outside EMA, it takes a bit longer. In Asia, we also don't have the local studies to allow for the launches, call it China, Japan, et cetera. So there are a few markets that are not in scope. There also could be one or two where we are just about to launch CagriSema, then that's the offering we go for. But broadly speaking, we are all in on that lifecycle management opportunity. Again, you saw the device cannot be click counted. It is super attractive also for reimbursement, et cetera. So we are fully behind it. Final question, Mike Leuchten. Thank you. A quick one for Karsten. Just going back to the ambition to keep the gross margins stable. Can you talk about the path? Because going into 2027, you have a negative mix effect from CagriSema. I guess the cash channel is still below profitability relative to the reimbursed channels. What is the path going to look like to get to that stable gross margin? Yeah. First and foremost, looping back to the slide, you did not see me call or Kasper for that matter, you did not see us call out mix as a negative driver during this path, and that is because the negative mix effect is rather small in this time period. A lot of people, they believe that the Wegovy tablets has a significant negative mix impact linked to the growth towards 2030. That is not the case. The Wegovy tablet is reasonably close to group average. As a consequence with the growth there, I think we have a very nice runway on the margin. It really boils down to price and depreciations on the negative side are being offset by a lot of productivity, be that AI yields and network optimizations. And of course, with a launch product in the first few years, generally you see a lower margin, but you also see a lower mix of the total book of business, right? Even if you take CagriSema that we have high hopes for, it is still a rather low percentage in the first few years of the group total. Even if it is below, then it is not materially going to impact group gross margin. Very clear answer on the margins. With that, I want to thank the entire panel for coming to stage. I want to leave the final word to you, Mike, to conclude on the CMD. Thank you very much. Very good. We are at the end of the day. I will not take too long of your time. I will recap some of the things that my colleagues brought forward today in the hope that as you leave, you will actually recall some of them in a single slide. We are planning to be a larger company in 2035, despite the very large LOE of semaglutide. We do that by diversifying the company. Starting with the core, what we know very well, diabetes and obesity. We will strengthen diabetes with the assets you saw my colleagues show and the launches that comes after that. We have perhaps one of the broadest portfolio of obesity products, both injectable as well as orals, because we are at early innings of this game. While some of our peers are coming with a single or 2 assets, we believe the winner will be the one who segments this part of the society into specific needs with very specific assets and provides that to them at different price points. We will do that. You have seen all the things that was shared by Martin and Hong related to that. We believe besides our core, we need to go broader and faster to some of the other adjacencies. Blood disorders was a very obvious place where we have a long heritage. We will actually be incredibly excited with the upcoming launches and expanding from there. Also you saw the data from our liver disease, efruxifermin asset, super exciting. With CV, I also mentioned despite just a setback, you should not count us out. You saw a little bit on that one as well. We also gave you an indication that that will be one of the growth drivers as well for the rest of this decade. If you take the base of today and add at least 50% on top of that number is where we expect ourselves and plan ourselves to be within that. We did say at least 5 blockbusters, actually multiple blockbusters, will be launched before the end of the decade. We also mentioned that we will bring all of this together and grow in line with the peer average in revenue terms, CAGR terms. That would be mid-single digit number that they have announced. We also said that by 2035, we see risk-adjusted minimum of 150 billion DKK in addition to where we are today worth of sales. That should give you some comfort for how we are planning to play with the LOE and showed you the building blocks of that. Of course, these are just words today. It is a strategic document and a direction for you to judge us quarter by quarter, but for us to execute on. To execute on that and ensure that we actually execute on that properly, last week, we announced a cultural transformation around 4 principles to our 67,000 employees, where we promise ourselves to make sure that everything that we do will start with a patient and a customer in front of us. That we make sure we are competitive, not compared to our own past, but compared to everyone else that is running in the same field. That we increase clarity and speed and agility in our organization, and that we actually show care and integrity, first and foremost, for ourselves and the employees, for those who we are serving, and not least for our shareholders, i.e., you. Those are the way we will turn this strategic document into action and will execute on it. It is for you to see our action quarter by quarter and put your judgment on it. Thank you so much for coming to today and joining us. We look forward, of course, in seeing and visiting you on the roadshow and in various different forums that we usually interact. Have a great day. Thank you.