That are bearing down on the pharmaceutical sector, drug pricing specifically. Just frame for us, you know, expectations of what to, you know, what you're looking for when now 30 days past the MF&EO. How have conversations with the administration been going? What's the status, and does it feel like that there's going to be a resolution anytime soon? Look, I'd say we're very encouraged by the engagement of the administration with the industry. We didn't have that before. I'd say the conversations, I'd say, are productive. There's a range of topics that are being discussed. I think, importantly, you know, if we think about the focus around addressing, you know, affordability and access of medicines, while at the same time preserving a healthy innovation ecosystem, is the balance we're trying to strike. We're encouraged by the fact that there's a focus now on appropriate value being ascribed to innovation outside the U.S., and we're engaged with trade on how to navigate the trade deal so that you can actually address this disconnect. We know today that Europe is essentially paying half as much of their GDP on innovative medicines. We know it takes much longer for reimbursement decisions. There's an EU directive where 180 days after marketing authorization, you need to have a reimbursement decision. We know on average it's taking 750 days. The EU Pharma Strategy is also focused on reducing regulatory data protection from 10 years to 8 years. We are arming the trade representative with all this information as a way in the trade negotiations to address, as has been addressed for other industries, I'd say, more fair practices towards pharmaceuticals, which then that coupled with, I think, a greater focus on abuse in 340B and a willingness to potentially address that, then gives you vehicles to then also address drug pricing in the U.S., which you know is a continued issue. We view it very holistically. I'd say we're encouraged. I do understand the focus on MF&EO. I personally think it's more of a way for the president to bring the industry to the table to ensure that there is dialogue. I'd say the conversations have been productive. There's quite a long way to go in terms of where we land. I'd say overall, I am encouraged. I would also point to things like the pill penalty being, you know, on the table to be removed. That was clearly an unfortunate outcome of the IRA and limiting small molecules to nine years versus biologics at 13 years, and you're then disincenting innovation for small molecules. You know, obviously an important area. PBM reform, to me, that's really about transparency and finding ways, again, to address patient affordability. Can you base copays off of net price versus list price to assist patients with their out-of-pocket? As you know, we were advocates for the changes in Medicare on reducing the out-of-pocket maximum, the smoothing. We've seen, you know, benefits utilization, albeit at a cost, and we factor that into our guidance. Those are the policies I'd say we'd be focused on. What can we do to address patient affordability and access while also preserving innovation in this country? I'm pretty sure the president does not want to take away the advantage the U.S. has in terms of R&D leadership. There is a motivation to preserve that, but also an interest in finding solutions with the industry for how we address drug pricing in the U.S. Just to the point on PBM reform, Rob, there still seems to be this investor perception out there that if it happens, it could disproportionately hurt AbbVie more relative to payers. Why is that a misguided perception? Yeah, I think it's a fairly outdated perception by going back 10 years to when Humira was only, you know, one of two or three on formularies. If you look at it broadly, the way we compete globally, we're very effective outside of the U.S., which, you know, those markets do not have a rebate-based system because we compete on the attributes of our products. You look at market share performance in markets outside the U.S., it's very strong. That, coupled with the fact that today these formularies have, you know, a dozen agents, it's essentially parity access. You're competing openly with other agents. There isn't exclusivity where that was a perception going back, again, 10 years to when Humira, there was more limited agents on the formularies. Given the breadth of drugs that are on these formularies, given the fact that, you know, we think about Skyrizi and Rinvoq, we have nine head-to-heads. We demonstrate a clinical differentiation. That has really driven the strategy for the companies to find an elevated standard of care. That is why we have been able to return to peak revenue just two years after the U.S. Humira LOE is because we brought products forward that are truly differentiated. We have demonstrated that with nine head-to-heads with more to come. That ultimately is what is really driving the performance. It is not that we have an advantage with the PBMs. We are certainly, you know, we utilize the tools that are available to us. We are effective at that. I would say even in a world where there is PBM reform, we are very confident that we can compete very effectively because of the attributes of our products. Maybe before we leave the topic, you know, there's another debate about just potential spillover from government channels into the commercial segment. You know, what gives you confidence that drug pricing risks, MF&EO, won't actually spill over? Ask yourself, how would you see broad adoption of MF&EO? The only avenue that would be apparent would be a demonstration project in Medicare. We've also gotten a similar question when the IRA was implemented about would you see spillover. We've said, look, there have been prices in the government channels in the past, VA, DOD as an example, where you do not see that type of spillover. That has not been our experience. We have not seen that come to fruition with the IRA, so we would not expect the same in this example either. Okay. All right. Let's move on to financials. Maybe just sort of level setting on 2025 guidance. Just high-level framing in the context of your recent guidance range and the momentum, phenomenal business momentum you guys saw in the first quarter earnings report. Give us an overview of where the business stands today, including around your core franchises and, you know, documentation. Yeah, I'll start by having Scott cover most of the question. I think just, you know, if you think about the performance of the company and just the very strong execution, we've put ourselves in a position again to return to very robust growth this year, exceed our peak revenue in just two years post-Humira in the U.S., and that's never been done before in our industry. Now we have a clear runway to growth for at least the next eight years. The business is in a very strong position. As you look across our growth platform, I mean, clearly leadership in immunology, a very strong and emerging pipeline in oncology, neuroscience, we are the, you know, it's our second largest therapeutic area. It's our fastest growing business, and it will be the leading neuroscience business in the industry next year. We expect to surpass Roche next year. Very strong neuroscience franchise that I think is underappreciated when you think about we're more than psych. We have a very compelling migraine franchise that covers a full spectrum of the disease between Botox therapeutic, Qulipta, and Ubrelvy, a very exciting emerging Parkinson's franchise with Vyalev and Tavapadon in the pipeline that came to us from Cerevel. Obviously then when you think about, you know, aesthetics, you know, we have good plans there for recovery and aesthetics. It's our fourth largest business, one that we can certainly continue to fund innovation given the significant growth of the other three that I just mentioned. We're in a very strong position, which is why, you know, our investments in the pipeline, our investments in BD are really focused on what can drive growth in the next decade and beyond. I would say the setup for the company is very strong. I'll let Scott speak to the particulars around the first quarter performance. Yeah, happy to. We've been very pleased with the execution and momentum. When you look at our first quarter results, we were ahead of our guidance from a revenue perspective by $550 million, from an earnings perspective by $0.10. I think what's especially important there is it was across the board. Within immunology, Skyrizi and Rinvoq together were roughly $350 million ahead of our guidance. In the neuroscience space, we are roughly $180 million ahead, oncology $130 million ahead. Aesthetics, even with the economic headwinds that we're experiencing, was right in line with our guidance. Very broad-based overperformance relative to our guidance in the quarter. In fact, our ex-Humira business grew approximately 23% on an operational basis year over year. Very, very strong performance. What we did with that, then we looked for the full year guidance and we increased our guidance again across the board. $700 million on the top line in total puts us just shy of $60 billion, $59.7 billion in total sales, as Rob mentioned. You know, that's a new peak sales for us very shortly after the Humira LOE event. We raised Skyrizi and Rinvoq together $900 million. We did take Humira down. We're seeing a little bit faster erosion, but immunology as a whole continues to grow. That is in that positive. Neuroscience, another $200 million increase on our overall guidance between Botox therapeutics and our oral CGRP franchise. Oncology, $200 million increase between Venclexta and Imbruvica. Then in the aesthetic side, we did take that down $200 million because we had initially assumed some economic recovery in the back half of the year, and we just did not think that was prudent to continue to consume that with the economy as it was. We took that down slightly, $200 million. Again, an overall strong increase. We increased earnings by $0.10. That ex-Humira sales increase for the full year is approximately 15%. We are seeing very strong, very strong performance. I would say the ex-Humira platform makes up 90% of our business. That's a great point. Yeah, it's almost at the end of the point. 90% of our business, yeah. Just in terms of, you know, cost cuts, several of your peers are talking about honing in on efficiencies and cost cuts in the context of the external environment. Maybe just give us an update on how you're thinking about this. Yeah, so the first point is that, you know, we certainly are very thoughtful with every dollar that we spend and every dollar that we invest. And as we've tried to ensure that we're investing in the future growth, you know, we're setting a good priority there. But we are pretty efficient. When you look at our operating margin, 46.5% is our guidance right now, which includes a half a point of IPR&D charge. So we've got a pretty efficient profile, and we'll continue to look at that. I would say with respect to any impacts from the pricing or the tariff impacts, we'll certainly look at when we understand what those actual impacts are going to be and how we approach that. But I think that we have a good track record of, you know, doing things necessary to mitigate impact. And again, the business is performing well. That momentum will be helpful as we face any challenges. We always look for ways of driving efficiencies. I think, you know, given the strategy we've pursued and been successful with of elevating standard of care and bringing forward assets that are truly differentiated, we've essentially been able to go through an LOE period where we did not have to cut R&D. We've been able to continue to grow the dividend. That's because of the strategy we've put in place. We've been fueling the pipeline investment as we think about the long-term growth potential of the company. We always would look for efficiencies, productivity as a way of mitigating any issues. I'd say you haven't seen us announce major cost reduction programs because of the strength of the business and the way the strategy has played out and our ability to invest in innovation both internally and externally to drive that future growth. One last big picture question, high-level question, and then I want to bring Jeff and Roopal in. Just business development more broadly. Just Rob or Scott, updated thoughts on size, scope, and is there any appetite for bigger deals? For bigger deals. It is always based on what the business needs. As I mentioned earlier, you know, we are in a position today where we have a clear line of sight to growth for the next eight years. The focus that I have now is about bringing in, whether it is the internal pipeline or external innovation, what are assets that can help us drive growth in the next decade and beyond. As a result, the focus has been more on early-stage opportunities. You have seen us since the beginning of last year execute more than 25 early-stage deals across our growth areas. In immunology, the focus has been on new mechanisms that can either as monotherapy or in combination with Skyrizi or Rinvoq elevate the standard of care. We also acquired Nimble Therapeutics to give us an oral peptides capability. Very excited about that. In oncology, the focus there has been more on multi-specifics, in-site to CAR-T opportunities as we think about the future pipeline in oncology that nicely complements the emerging pipeline we have across ADCs, bispecifics from our internal pipeline, as well as the acquisition of ImmunoGen. In neuroscience, and that's an area I mentioned earlier, underappreciated, but it's really, again, four segments. Think about psychiatry, you know, migraine, Parkinson's, and then neurodegeneration, particularly focus on Alzheimer's. We've executed deals in essentially all those areas. When you think about in psychiatry, we extended our discovery collaboration with Gideon Richter, who discovered Vraylar. We also have 932 in our pipeline today. We executed a deal with Gilgamesh on a psychoplastogen for mood disorders as a novel approach in psychiatry. We also acquired a next-generation A-beta antibody from Alector that has great potential in Alzheimer's. That is where we have been focusing our investments. As I think about the company, you know, in the next decade, we are going to be a very large enterprise. We already are a large company. We are going to be even bigger in a decade's time. We have been evaluating whether there are new sources of growth we should consider. That is why we pursued the opportunity with Gubra. As we look at obesity, obviously large market, high unmet need, but we wanted to see something that was truly differentiated to enter this space. The Gubra opportunity presented that. We are very excited about the role that Amlan can play. We think about tolerability, potential, you know, muscle benefit, bone benefit. As we think about the need for maintenance therapy, there is a lot of opportunity here, a lot of space. This is a market that is projected to be $100 billion-$150 billion in the middle part of the next decade. In terms of BD, we all, in addition to our current growth areas, we do intend to continue to build around the Gubra asset in obesity because we see that as an important growth driver, you know, potential growth driver for the company in the next decade, given how large we will be. Okay, I want to come back to obesity, but I want to just maybe start on the product side, talk about immunology. Jeff, maybe I can bring you in here. Just give us, you know, talk to us about what you're seeing in the immunology markets broadly with respect to the competitive environment. You've got Tremfya now launching in IBD, specifically in the subQ in the induction period, which J&J has been framing as a bit of a competitive advantage. You've also got the Stelara biosimilar launch now, I believe, six months in. Any color on sort of, you know, high-level market and pricing dynamics, and also is the switching dynamic that you saw with Humira compression similar to what you're seeing with Stelara biosimilar? Yeah, great question. Let me sort of lay out what we're seeing from a competitive standpoint and a biosimilar Stelara standpoint. I think first we take a step back and think about why are we seeing such dramatic growth with Skyrizi and Rinvoq. You know, we're capturing one out of every two newer switching patients in Crohn's and one out of every three newer switching patients in ulcerative colitis. That's because of the work that Roopal's team did, where we started to restate the value drivers of that market. It sort of shifted from normal symptom resolution to endoscopic disease control. When you look at the results that you've seen across our assets, it's absolutely exceptional. That's what's been driving this very, very significant growth. In terms of overall what we're seeing with the competition, you mentioned Tremfya, we don't have a direct head-to-head comparison, but you can see relative performance across these head-to-head trials with Stelara. For example, in our clinical trial with that endoscopic endpoint, like the healing of the bowel, it was double what used to be the formal market leader, Stelara. It is quite dramatic when you look at that. I have to say, when you look at the cross-study comparisons, they're not precisely the same. We think our data stacks very, very well, and we have both assets that we're co-positioning very effectively in that marketplace. I think the other context is J&J is a very good competitor, but it's not a zero-sum game. We believe that certainly the IL-23 category or subcategory will be the dramatic leader over the next five years, and Skyrizi will continue to play the leading role in that subcategory. The other part, you mentioned induction, and induction is an important part of the patient journey, but it's really one small piece. Most of these patients will be on their medication for three or four years because of the power of a drug like Skyrizi. If you think about the overall convenience, you know, we have, you know, every eight-week dosing, where the standard dose for Tremfya will be every four weeks. We have a unique delivery system called the OnBody Device or the OBI. We have patient preference data that we've recently released that shows that the Crohn's patients and UC patients, they love the OnBody Device, in some cases significantly better than an oral medication that they may have tried earlier in their journey. Overall, net net, we're very, very pleased with the performance that we see across the IBD portfolio. You mentioned Stelara. It's about six months since the availability of Stelara. The first aspect is we haven't seen any material change in our ability to make sure to maintain and continue to grow our access position. I think it goes back to what Rob highlighted is the level of evidence that we put forth, particularly a striking transformational head-to-head trial we call Sequence, has really helped differentiate the asset. Physicians can see it, payers can see it. We have not seen any material degradation in our, you know, pricing guidance or formulary position. I think that has been strong. I think it is a little early, other than the normal rateability of Stelara shifting over to the newer mechanisms. We have not seen something disruptive like we saw in the second year of the LOE where CVS took an action and then there was more movement. I think it has just been normal market movement. We will continue to monitor that over time. It would not be a surprise if we started to see some of that, however, just based on how physicians are thinking about that chance to upgrade the control with a medication like Skyrizi or Rinvoq. All good in terms of our ability to continue to compete very strongly. That's very helpful. And then maybe just, you know, how are you thinking about the impact of the introduction of the oral IL-23s into the market? Yeah, we've studied that, you know, very strongly over the years because we saw the, of course, the adoption of Otezla many years ago. We watched the Tick 2s very carefully, and we take all those competitors very seriously. Now, what we've seen over time is that the oral products in the immunology marketplace, they kind of carve out a position for certain patients in the more mild or early moderate level for people that maybe aren't quite ready to go to the full strength biologics. I think the most important point to think about is that this oral IL-23 is not operating in its efficacy like a biologic IL-23. It just doesn't have that level of basically of efficacy. And these are some serious conditions, right? So the physicians are very much always leaning there. It's almost like a separate market space that gets carved out in a market expansion dynamic in terms of what we're seeing in these marketplaces. I suspect the J&J product, as we continue to see that move forward, will compete very effectively in the oral market space. I think there's going to be a clear distinction in terms of where that's going to play relative to the higher orders of a Skyrizi or Rinvoq, for example. Maybe we can just shift to Violev. That was another product that outperformed in the first quarter. Just maybe speak to the trend that you're seeing there. Yeah, we're very happy with Vyalev and the performance that we've seen so far. It's primarily been in the international markets. Scott has guided to, you know, roughly $300 million of essentially that's like really the first full year of momentum that we've seen because the U.S. has not had the Medicare reimbursement. It's coming in the back part of the year. That sort of ramp, you know, largely based in the international space, is very, very significant. Frankly, it's been above our expectations. We always believed that this was going to be an important medication because essentially the market structure is patients don't do well on oral medication as their disease continues. They have to take more and more oral pills, eight pills a day, six pills a day, even more. Ultimately, they're faced with a very difficult choice. What do I do next? That has, before Vyalev, entailed a surgery, deep brain stimulation or our own Duopa, which was a GI surgery. Now with a simple subQ, a smaller pump, we've created this subQ space after orals start to fail. It has really captured the passion of the movement disorder specialists. We see a couple of advantages. One, great efficacy, no surgery, and probably more importantly, it is a 24-hour continuous infusion. The ability for patients to sleep well, sleep through the night without being frozen in their bed or wake up off, they can wake up on and immediately start their day. That has been a quite striking impact to the marketplace. We are very excited about the ramp. We are very confident that the Medicare patients are going to come online as we exit 2025 and move into 2026. As Rob mentioned, it is one of our big pillars in neuroscience, and it is beyond even Violev because now we have Tavapadon, which is going to be earlier positioned. Around the world, we have a great commercial footprint, a great medical footprint of medical experts and representatives that are going to bring a full portfolio to the space. It is very exciting from what we are seeing in the taste from the market. Tavapadon's getting filed later this year, right? Yeah. Rupal? Yeah, this is our D1, D5 differentiated asset from the older generation. That'll get submitted this year, and we anticipate launch next year. We're seeing high levels of efficacy that are approaching levodopa/carbidopa in that naive patient population that hasn't seen an oral as a monotherapy. There's very strong data as an add-on. It will give a different patient population than the Vyalev patients a new therapeutic option that would be a once-a-day, 24-hour half-life option as they're trying to optimize that. We think the uptake there can be better than what we've seen with the older generation because of the efficacy profile, but definitely the safety profile, which over time the older dopamine agonists showed sedation, which was unpredictable, and impulse control disorder, which really decreased utilization. These are people that would eat uncontrollably, spend money, gamble. We do not see those levels of adverse events, even peripheral edema, which is quite a nuisance to these patients. We do not have any of that. That creates, as what Jeff was saying, a portfolio or franchise opportunity in Parkinson's. Rupal, let's just stay with you then and, you know, dig a little bit deeper on parts of the pipeline that, you know, recently from my conversation seem to be capturing investor attention, certainly thematically. Just starting with the PD-L1 VEGF bispecifics in oncology, obviously there's been a lot of, you know, sort of movement in this area. It's emerged as a highly watched mechanism with the potential to disrupt the standard of care. I guess, you know, how are these new partnerships and trials that are showing the validation of this class shifting the mindset on this opportunity in oncology from where you guys are concerned? What is your level of interest in participating in this market? Our focus right now has been ADCs, and we're building that pipeline in ovarian, colon, lung, and it's part of lung, non-small cell cancer and small cell cancer. I would say it hasn't been really a shift in our thinking. We always felt with ADCs it would be important to have a combination in the immuno-oncology space. We're developing in TGF beta and anti-CCR8. That being said, if there's other opportunities like the one that you've brought up that we've seen some data readouts, that could be something that we would be interested in that could result into a unique combination with some of our ADCs. We're also interested in T-cell engagers, which we're in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma as a partnership with Epkinly, and then our own 383 or intantamide asset in multiple myeloma, which is in phase three. We see these novel mechanisms as long as they're effective and safe and can combine well, we think that could be a component of our overarching strategy. You mentioned 383, and that was actually my next question. I saw that you had, this is the BCMA bispecific. Yes. I saw that you advanced this into a phase three trial in relapsed refractory multiple myeloma recently. You know, talk to us about how you're thinking about that opportunity. I think one way to consider this first is the market where you're seeing more movement into these bispecifics. One of the challenges is the combinability and the utilization of it, especially in the community. It can be challenging to give these inpatient. They have CRS, they have significant amounts of neutropenia, and in-hospital dosing, multiple step-ups, and weekly to twice-a-month dosing. They are showing efficacy, and there's enhanced utilization, and that's competing with CAR-T, which likely will still be reserved for later lines because of the safety profile. We were just talking about Parkinson's. There is a neurologic effect that can happen later on. There may be another one that's on the market. They may not do that as much. Still, we see the majority of the prescriber base in the community, which could be 60%, 70%, 80%, depending on the jurisdiction that we're talking about. In comes something like a 383 intantamide, which we are seeing a single step-up dosing as part of the regimen, and then immediately going to once a month. We are seeing a very safe profile that could enable a simplified outpatient use and less utilization of inpatient resources. That could be a large benefit to health systems in addition to the patient and to the community prescriber. What we are working on in parallel with the phase three program is numerous combinations with other known assets because we feel the safety profile would enable an easier combination, more tolerable combination. That could allow this asset to move into earlier lines of therapy. That, plus the other parameters I mentioned, would allow it, albeit late, to still differentiate when it comes to the market because that could then become the go-to one as people are accustomed to using these. Now, here's an easier one and maybe one that I can combine with greater confidence because I'm not as concerned about safety. I guess just last, Roopal, on immunology, hidradenitis suppurativa. HS. Yes, HS is obviously an indication in Derm that's, again, getting a lot of attention recently. I know that Rinvoq is going to have some phase three data next year. It doesn't seem to get a lot of attention. You've also, I think, started a phase three study for lutechizumab in HS. There the phase two data from what we could tell was very compelling. Help us frame the opportunity there. This is one that we recognized many, many years ago with Humira. Yeah. We were the first to market not just with the biologic, but with any approved therapy. We know the market well. Jeff's team, Jeff himself knows it very, very well. It was a terrific launch for Humira that maybe surprised us a little bit. That being said, knowing the information that we have in front of us, along with what we've learned in IBD, now you've heard about that structure and our in-place share with Skyrizi and Rinvoq in Crohn's and in UC, that is a similar dynamic we can see in HS where you have an oral asset, a JAK inhibitor that can come in after biologics, and that's where it's positioned in IBD. We have lutechizumab, which is a differentiated mechanism for the TNFs and the 17 class, which is an IL-1 alpha beta bispecific. We do not see a threat of worsening IBD in HS patients. In fact, we learned about HS through IBD because we saw overlap in patients with Crohn's disease that actually had HS. You would have that asset that could play in the naive population and even in some biofailure population. That is how those two are being studied now. When they would launch, we would see that playing out similarly as how we have positioned Skyrizi and Rinvoq in IBD quite successfully. I guess I want to come back to, you know, Rob, you were talking to obesity. You already spoke about sort of the update on the Gubra asset as a foundation for cardiometabolic. I guess just high level, again, recognizing it's early, but how is this debate on eroding pricing dynamics in obesity just playing into your own assessment on how you've modeled out this opportunity for the amylin class? I'd point to two things. One, when you actually bring differentiation to the market, you tend to see those assets get valued appropriately. That said, by the time we're thinking about the Gubra asset coming to market, you know, early part of the next decade, you know, one attribute that we have that our peers don't have is an aesthetics business that knows the cash pay market very well. As we've modeled it, we would expect, you know, over time prices to come down, over time an important cash pay segment. That said, if you can bring forward therapeutics that demonstrate differentiation and command real value, that can also factor into the pricing equation. We've thought of it in both ways, but we do think we are uniquely positioned given our presence in aesthetics and our knowledge of that cash pay market. Perfect. Segue to my last question, which is on aesthetics, and we haven't really talked about, you know, that business. I guess the University of Michigan Index of Consumer Sentiment did show us a little bit of it was revised upward in the May report. So I guess any, are you seeing any signs of stabilization? We're certainly seeing a more stable toxin market. You know, one of the things that we're seeing is that our share versus some of the dip that we saw based on the loyalty program is starting to recover, which is very encouraging. We'll have to see on the filler market. The filler market is certainly down sequentially. It's a little bit more sensitive to the consumer sentiment because it's more expensive for the procedure, and it's viewed as a little bit more discretionary. I think at some point that we will see the stabilization. I think we're getting close. I think it was the right call based on what we were seeing here in the first quarter with the sentiment to, to Scott's point, is to decrease the expectations a little bit. Overall, we're super pleased with this business. It's a very nice business. It's very profitable. We think we can really lead, particularly because we're going to run into the approval of Trinavot E or basically the fast-acting off-tox and on-off toxin, which is a real trial toxin that we think ultimately will help us stimulate the market and also move towards the share because it's been safely studied with that transition of Botox. The first real innovation is that in toxins. Yes. Decades. The timing of that is still later this year, the approval? We submitted an approval like we submitted in April. April. Twelve-month review. So next year. Early next year. Early next year. Okay. Great. We are just about out of time. Thank you very much for your time. That was great, great conversation. Thank you. Appreciate your data. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.