Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. Stock price
📊 Peer Group
📈 What is it?
The peer group consists of the companies with the most similar business model. They serve as a benchmark for putting a stock into context.
🧮 How is it selected?
Based on similarity of business model, meaning companies from the same industry with comparable products and a similar customer base. That's the only way to compare apples to apples.
🏛️ Why does it matter?
Whether a stock is cheap or expensive is best judged by comparison. A P/E of 18 or an EV/FCF of 20 can look cheap or expensive depending on the yardstick. The peer group gives you the most accurate one: companies with a similar business model that operate under the same conditions.
🎯 What does it mean for investors?
When a metric sits below the peer average, the stock is valued more cheaply relative to its competitors, and above the average more expensively. A discount to the peer group can be an opportunity, but it can also have a reason (for example lower growth). The comparison is a starting point, not a verdict.
AI Insights on Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc.
Insights
Invest better with AI
StocksGuide Unlimited – full access to AI analyses
👉 More detailed insights
👉 Exclusive perspectives on opportunities & risks
👉 Clear answers to your questions
Invest better with AI
StocksGuide Unlimited – full access to AI analyses
👉 More detailed insights
👉 Exclusive perspectives on opportunities & risks
👉 Clear answers to your questions
Invest better with AI
StocksGuide Unlimited – full access to AI analyses
👉 More detailed insights
👉 Exclusive perspectives on opportunities & risks
👉 Clear answers to your questions
Invest better with AI
StocksGuide Unlimited – full access to AI analyses
👉 More detailed insights
👉 Exclusive perspectives on opportunities & risks
👉 Clear answers to your questions
Is Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. a Top Scorer Stock based on the Dividend, High-Growth-Investing or Leverman Strategy?
As a Free StocksGuide user, you can view scores for all 9,127 stocks worldwide.
StocksGuide Premium
StocksGuide Unlimited
Key metrics
📘 Market Capitalization
📈 What is it?
Market capitalization shows how much a company is currently worth on the stock market.
🧮 How is it calculated?
🏛️ Why is it important?
It helps classify companies by size (Large, Mid, Small Cap) and indicates their market presence and relative stability.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- Large-cap companies tend to be more stable, often pay dividends, but may grow more slowly.
- Smaller firms may offer higher growth potential but come with more volatility.
- Market capitalization is a useful indicator of company size — but not a measure of whether a stock is undervalued or overvalued.
📘 Enterprise Value (EV)
📈 What is it?
Enterprise Value represents the total cost to acquire a company — including its debt and excluding its cash reserves.
🧮 How is it calculated?
(= Market Cap + Net Debt)
🏛️ Why is it important?
EV gives a more complete picture of a company's value than market cap alone and is used in key valuation ratios like EV/FCF or EV/Sales.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- Enterprise Value shows the true cost of buying a company, including all financial obligations.
- It is more accurate than just looking at market cap, especially when comparing companies with different levels of debt or cash.
- Professional investors prefer EV-based multiples because they better reflect the company’s full financial footprint.
📘 Net Debt
📈 What is it?
Net Debt shows how much debt remains after subtracting a company’s available cash reserves.
🧮 How is it calculated?
🏛️ Why is it important?
It indicates how dependent a company is on borrowed money and how easily it can service its debt in the short term.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- Low or negative net debt signals financial strength and flexibility.
- Companies with strong cash positions are better positioned in crises.
- High net debt increases financial risk — especially in environments with rising interest rates or economic downturns.
📘 Cash
📈 What is it?
Cash represents all liquid assets a company can access immediately — including cash, bank deposits, and short-term investments.
🧮 How is it calculated?
🏛️ Why is it important?
It reflects a company’s financial flexibility and resilience — enabling investments, buybacks, or buffer in downturns.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- A strong cash position means greater room for maneuver and crisis resistance.
- Cash-rich companies can invest, pay down debt, or repurchase shares.
- But excess idle cash might indicate a lack of growth opportunities.
📘 Shares Outstanding
📈 What is it?
Shares outstanding represent the total number of a company’s shares currently held by investors — excluding treasury stock.
🧮 How is it calculated?
🏛️ Why is it important?
It’s the basis for key metrics like Earnings Per Share (EPS), Market Capitalization, or the Price/Earnings ratio (P/E).
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- Fewer shares in circulation typically increase earnings per share — making each share more valuable.
- Share buybacks reduce the number of shares and boost per-share metrics.
- Issuing new shares does the opposite — diluting shareholder value and lowering per-share figures.
📘 Price-to-Earnings Ratio (P/E)
📈 What is it?
The P/E ratio shows how many times a company's earnings per share are reflected in its current share price — in other words, how "expensive" the stock appears relative to its profits.
🧮 How is it calculated?
🏛️ Why is it important?
The P/E ratio is one of the most widely used valuation metrics. It helps investors assess whether a stock appears cheap or expensive compared to its earnings power.
🧮 Calculation
📊 P/E (TTM) = Based on earnings from the last 12 months (Trailing Twelve Months):🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- A low P/E may indicate undervaluation — or signal underlying issues.
- A high P/E may reflect strong growth expectations — or an overvalued stock.
📘 Price-to-Sales Ratio (P/S)
📈 What is it?
The P/S ratio shows how much investors are paying for $1 of the company’s revenue – regardless of profitability.
🧮 How is it calculated?
🏛️ Why is it important?
P/S is especially useful for evaluating growth companies or businesses not yet profitable. It reflects how the market values the company’s sales.
🧮 Calculation
Market Cap = $14.07b | Revenue (TTM) = $3.37b
Market Cap = $14.07b | Estimated Revenue = $3.98b
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- A low P/S may indicate undervaluation — or low profitability.
- A high P/S can reflect strong growth expectations — or excessive optimism.
- Especially helpful when evaluating companies where profits are low, volatile, or negative.
📘 Enterprise Value to Sales (EV/Sales)
📈 What is it?
EV/Sales shows how much investors are paying for $1 of revenue — considering not just equity, but also debt and cash. It’s the capital structure–adjusted version of the P/S ratio.
🧮 How is it calculated?
🏛️ Why is it important?
It’s ideal for comparing companies with different levels of debt. It reflects a company's true cost relative to its revenue.
🧮 Calculation
Enterprise Value = $13.68b | Revenue (TTM) = $3.37b
Enterprise Value = $13.68b | Forward Revenue = $3.98b
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- EV/Sales allows for capital structure–neutral company comparisons.
- A lower ratio may indicate undervaluation; a higher one may signal strong growth expectations or overvaluation.
- Especially helpful when evaluating high-growth companies with low or negative earnings.
📘 Enterprise Value to Free Cash Flow (EV/FCF)
📈 What is it?
EV/FCF shows how many years it would take for a company to "pay back" its enterprise value using its free cash flow.
🧮 How is it calculated?
🏛️ Why is it important?
It focuses on real cash generation, ignoring accounting noise — ideal for assessing profitability and value based on liquidity, not earnings.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- A low EV/FCF may signal undervaluation and strong cash generation.
- A high EV/FCF might reflect weak recent cash flow or aggressive growth expectations.
- Best suited for stable, mature businesses with predictable free cash flows.
📘 Price-to-Book Ratio (P/B)
📈 What is it?
The P/B ratio compares a company’s market value to its book value — showing how much investors are paying for each dollar of net assets.
🧮 How is it calculated?
🏛️ Why is it important?
P/B is commonly used for asset-heavy industries like banks or industrials. It helps assess whether a stock is trading above or below its net asset value.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- A P/B below 1 may signal undervaluation — or weak profitability.
- A P/B above 1 implies the market expects future value creation (e.g., brand, IP, growth).
- Best used for companies with tangible assets and strong balance sheets.
📘 Equity Ratio
📈 What is it?
The equity ratio indicates what portion of a company’s total assets is financed by shareholders’ equity – in other words, how much it relies on its own capital.
🧮 How is it calculated?
🏛️ Why is it important?
A high equity ratio reflects financial strength and stability, especially during downturns. It’s a key indicator of a company’s solvency and long-term risk profile.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- Companies with high equity ratios are generally more resilient and less dependent on external debt.
- Low equity ratios can signal higher risk or aggressive financial strategies.
- Important: Always assess the equity ratio in combination with the return on equity (ROE). This shows not just how stable the company is – but also how efficiently it uses shareholder capital.
📘 Return on Equity (ROE)
📈 What is it?
Return on equity (ROE) shows how efficiently a company uses its shareholders’ equity to generate profit. In other words: how much net income is earned per dollar of equity.
🧮 How is it calculated?
🏛️ Why is it important?
ROE is a core profitability metric. It helps investors understand whether a company delivers attractive returns on the capital provided by its shareholders.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- A high ROE indicates that the company is using its capital efficiently and profitably.
- It’s especially meaningful for capital-intensive businesses or firms with high equity bases.
- Important: A very high ROE can also result from high debt levels – always interpret it alongside the equity ratio to assess financial health.
📘 Return on Capital Employed (ROCE)
📈 What is it?
ROCE measures how efficiently a company generates profits from its total capital – including both equity and interest-bearing debt.
🧮 How is it calculated?
It evaluates the return on all capital employed, regardless of how it’s financed.
🏛️ Why is it important?
ROCE is ideal for comparing companies with different financing structures. It shows how well management uses capital to create value for both shareholders and creditors.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- A high ROCE means the company uses its capital efficiently – regardless of whether it's funded by debt or equity.
- The higher the ROCE compared to peers, the more value the company creates with its invested capital.
- Especially relevant for capital-intensive sectors like industrials, energy, or infrastructure.
📘 Return on Invested Capital (ROIC)
📈 What is it?
ROIC measures how efficiently a company generates returns from the capital invested in its core operations – regardless of whether the capital comes from equity or debt.
🧮 How is it calculated?
- NOPAT = Net Operating Profit After Taxes
- Invested Capital = Operating assets minus non-interest-bearing liabilities
🏛️ Why is it important?
ROIC is one of the most accurate indicators of capital efficiency. Unlike return on equity, it is not distorted by leverage and shows how much value is created for all capital providers.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- A high ROIC shows how effectively a company uses the capital that is truly invested in its core operations.
- Unlike ROCE, ROIC focuses only on the capital that is actively used to run the business – and that requires a return (i.e. interest-bearing).
- Especially useful when comparing companies with large amounts of excess cash or non-interest-bearing liabilities – giving a more realistic picture of capital efficiency.
📘 Leverage Ratio (Debt-to-Equity)
📈 What is it?
The leverage ratio indicates how much a company relies on interest-bearing debt (such as loans and bonds) relative to its shareholders’ equity.
🧮 How is it calculated?
🏛️ Why is it important?
This ratio helps assess a company’s financial structure and risk profile. High leverage can enhance returns – but also increases exposure to interest rate changes and financial stress.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- A low leverage ratio signals financial strength and independence.
- A higher ratio can improve returns in good times but increases risk during downturns or rising interest rate periods.
- 👉 Always interpret in the context of industry, capital intensity, and interest rate environment.
📘 Revenue
📈 What is it?
Revenue shows how much a company earns in total from selling its products and services – the gross income before any costs are deducted.
🧮 How is it calculated?
🏛️ Why is it important?
Revenue is one of the key figures to assess a company’s size, market position, and growth potential.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- Growing revenue indicates rising demand and can be an early signal of future earnings growth.
- Comparing actual and expected revenue reveals trends in the market environment and analyst sentiment.
- Note: Strong revenue alone isn’t enough – margins and profitability matter just as much.
📘 EBITDA
📈 What is it?
EBITDA stands for “Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization.” It reflects a company’s operating profit before the effects of financing, taxes, and accounting depreciation.
🧮 How is it calculated?
🏛️ Why is it important?
EBITDA is widely used to evaluate a company’s operating performance – especially across capital-intensive sectors or international comparisons.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- A high or growing EBITDA indicates strong operational profitability – independent of taxes, interest, or accounting methods.
- It’s especially useful for comparing companies across sectors or geographies.
- Important: EBITDA is not a net income figure – it excludes key costs like depreciation and interest.
📘 EBIT
📈 What is it?
EBIT stands for “Earnings Before Interest and Taxes.” It reflects a company’s operating profit after depreciation, but before interest and tax expenses.
🧮 How is it calculated?
🏛️ Why is it important?
EBIT is a core profitability metric that shows how well the company performs in its main business operations – independent of capital structure and tax environment.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- A high EBIT indicates strong profitability from the company’s core business – before financial and tax effects.
- It allows better comparison between companies with different debt levels or tax structures.
- Compared to EBITDA, EBIT already accounts for depreciation and reflects capital intensity more clearly.
📘 Net Income
📈 What is it?
Net income is the company’s total profit – the amount left after all expenses, taxes, interest, and depreciation have been deducted.
🧮 How is it calculated?
🏛️ Why is it important?
Net income is the most comprehensive measure of a company’s profitability – showing how much actual profit remains after all business and financing costs.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- Growing net income indicates that the company is managing all of its costs efficiently.
- It directly influences valuation metrics like P/E ratio and the company’s dividend capacity.
- Over time, net income trends reveal how resilient and profitable the business model really is.
📘 Free Cash Flow (FCF)
📈 What is it?
Free Cash Flow shows how much actual cash remains after a company covers its operating expenses and capital expenditures.
🧮 How is it calculated?
🏛️ Why is it important?
FCF reflects a company’s real financial strength – regardless of accounting profits. It shows how much flexibility a company has for dividends, share buybacks, or debt reduction.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- High free cash flow means the company generates real, usable cash – independent of reported net income.
- It’s often the most reliable base for sustainable dividends and buybacks.
- Declining FCF can be an early warning sign – even when profits appear stable.
📘 Revenue Growth
📈 What is it?
Revenue growth shows how much a company’s sales have changed compared to the previous year – both on a trailing basis (TTM) and based on forward projections.
🧮 How is it calculated?
Forward = (Expected revenue ÷ Revenue in prior year − 1) × 100
Forward growth is based on analyst estimates for the current fiscal year.
🏛️ Why is it important?
Rising revenue signals growing demand, business expansion, and market share gains – especially important for growth-oriented companies.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- Growth is the engine of long-term value creation – especially in tech and growth sectors.
- What matters is not just current growth, but its sustainability.
- Forward projections reflect whether analysts expect continued momentum – or a slowdown.
📘 EBITDA Growth
📈 What is it?
EBITDA growth shows how much a company’s operating profit (before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) has increased or decreased compared to the previous year.
🧮 How is it calculated?
Forward = (Expected EBITDA ÷ EBITDA from prior year − 1) × 100
The forward estimate is based on analyst projections for the current fiscal year.
🏛️ Why is it important?
Growing EBITDA indicates improving operational profitability – regardless of financing or accounting effects.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- Strong EBITDA growth signals operational efficiency and scalability – especially during growth phases.
- EBITDA growth can be an early indicator of margin and earnings expansion – but should be assessed alongside revenue and EBIT.
📘 EBIT Growth
📈 What is it?
EBIT growth shows how much a company’s operating profit (after depreciation, but before interest and taxes) has increased compared to the previous year.
🧮 How is it calculated?
Forward = (Expected EBIT ÷ EBIT from prior year − 1) × 100
The forward estimate is based on analyst projections for the current fiscal year.
🏛️ Why is it important?
EBIT growth is a direct indicator of a company’s business performance – taking into account capital intensity through depreciation.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- Rising EBIT signals improving operating profitability – even after accounting for depreciation.
- It’s especially important for evaluating companies with significant capital expenditures.
- Combined with revenue and EBITDA growth, EBIT growth provides a well-rounded view of operational progress.
📘 Net Income Growth
📈 What is it?
Net income growth shows how much a company’s bottom-line profit has increased or decreased compared to the previous year – both on a trailing basis (TTM) and based on analyst projections.
🧮 How is it calculated?
Forward = (Expected net income ÷ Net income from prior year − 1) × 100
The forward estimate reflects analysts’ expectations for the current fiscal year.
🏛️ Why is it important?
Net income is the ultimate measure of profitability. Growing net income signals stronger efficiency, cost control, and sustainable earnings power.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- Stronger net income boosts valuation, dividend potential, and investor confidence.
- If profits stall while revenue grows, it may signal margin pressure.
📘 Free Cash Flow Growth
📈 What is it?
Free cash flow (FCF) growth shows how a company’s available cash – after covering operating expenses and capital expenditures – has changed compared to the previous year.
🧮 How is it calculated?
🏛️ Why is it important?
Free cash flow reflects real financial strength. Growing FCF indicates more flexibility for dividends, share buybacks, and reinvestment.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- Declining FCF may point to rising investments, increasing costs, or weaker operating performance.
- Especially for dividend investors, FCF growth is critical – since dividends are paid from actual available cash.
- A negative trend isn't always bad, but it deserves closer attention.
📘 Gross Margin
📈 What is it?
Gross margin shows how much of a company’s revenue remains after deducting the direct costs of goods sold (like materials and production). It represents the company’s “raw profit” before fixed costs, taxes, and interest.
🧮 How is it calculated?
Or simply: Gross Margin = Gross Profit ÷ Revenue × 100
🏛️ Why is it important?
Gross margin indicates how efficiently a company can produce or procure what it sells. It is a key measure of product-level profitability and pricing power.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- A high gross margin suggests strong pricing power and efficient production.
- Falling margins may signal rising input costs or competitive pressure.
- Compared to peers, gross margin offers insights into the quality of a business model.
📘 EBITDA Margin
📈 What is it?
The EBITDA margin shows how much of a company’s revenue remains as operating profit before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization.It reflects operating efficiency without being distorted by financing or accounting factors.
🧮 How is it calculated?
🏛️ Why is it important?
The EBITDA margin reveals how much operating income a company generates per dollar of revenue – independent of capital structure and tax effects.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- A high EBITDA margin reflects strong core profitability – before accounting distortions.
- It allows for effective comparisons across companies and sectors.
- A stable or growing margin signals efficient cost control and business scalability.
📘 EBIT Margin
📈 What is it?
The EBIT margin shows what percentage of revenue remains as operating profit after depreciation but before interest and taxes.
🧮 How is it calculated?
🏛️ Why is it important?
The EBIT margin reflects a company’s core profitability while accounting for capital intensity (e.g. machinery, infrastructure). It’s especially useful for comparing businesses with different levels of depreciation.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- A high EBIT margin shows that the company remains efficient even after factoring in depreciation.
- It’s especially relevant for capital-intensive industries.
- Stable or rising EBIT margins over time are a strong indicator of pricing power and business quality.
📘 Net margin
📈 What is it?
Net margin shows how much of a company’s revenue remains as bottom-line profit after deducting all costs, interest, taxes, and depreciation.
🧮 How is it calculated?
🏛️ Why is it important?
Net margin reflects a company’s overall efficiency – across operations, financing, and taxation. It shows how much actual profit is generated from each dollar of revenue.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- A high net margin means the company is not only strong operationally but also manages financing and taxes efficiently.
- Peer comparisons reveal business quality and competitiveness.
- Declining margins despite revenue growth can be a red flag for rising costs or inefficiencies.
📘 Free cash flow margin
📈 What is it?
The free cash flow (FCF) margin shows how much of a company’s revenue remains as actual free cash after covering all operating expenses and capital expenditures.
🧮 How is it calculated?
🏛️ Why is it important?
This margin reflects the true liquidity generated by the business – independent of accounting rules or depreciation. It’s especially relevant for dividends, buybacks, and reinvestment decisions.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- A high FCF margin means a company consistently generates strong cash flow.
- It’s a positive signal for financial stability and shareholder returns.
- The long-term trend is key – a declining margin may indicate rising investments or weakening operating efficiency.
📘 Earnings per share (EPS)
📈 What is it?
Earnings per Share (EPS) shows how much profit is attributable to a single share – and is one of the most important metrics for evaluating a company's performance.
🧮 How is it calculated?
The diluted share count reflects potential new shares that could be issued through options, convertible bonds, or other rights.
🏛️ Why is it important?
EPS is the basis for many key valuation metrics like P/E ratio, PEG ratio, or payout ratio. It enables comparisons of profitability across companies, regardless of their size.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- EPS captures per-share profitability and is especially useful for comparisons over time or with analyst estimates.
- Rising EPS may signal consistent growth or share buybacks.
- Important: Always use diluted EPS for more realistic valuations – especially in companies with stock-based compensation.
📘 Free cash flow per share (FCF per share)
📈 What is it?
Free Cash Flow per Share shows how much free cash flow a company generates per outstanding share – after investments, but before dividends or debt repayments.
🧮 How is it calculated?
Free cash flow is calculated as operating cash flow minus capital expenditures (CapEx).
🏛️ Why is it important?
FCF per Share reveals how much real cash is available per share – useful for dividends, buybacks, or reducing debt. Unlike net income, free cash flow is harder to manipulate and often seen as a more reliable metric.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- High FCF per share signals strong financial flexibility.
- It shows how much capital the company can effectively reinvest or return to shareholders.
- Particularly relevant for dividend payers and capital-efficient businesses.
📘 Short interest
📈 What is it?
Short interest indicates how many shares of a company are currently sold short – that is, borrowed and sold by investors who expect the price to decline.
🧮 How is it calculated?
It reflects the percentage of a company’s shares that are being shorted relative to the total shares available.
🏛️ Why is it important?
Short interest serves as a sentiment indicator: A high value may signal skepticism or bearish expectations – but also increases the potential for a short squeeze if prices rise unexpectedly.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- Low short interest usually indicates market confidence in the company.
- High short interest can be a warning sign – or an opportunity if sentiment shifts.
- Especially relevant in volatile markets or ahead of key earnings releases.
📘 Employees
📈 What is it?
The employee count shows how many people a company employs worldwide – offering insights into its size, structure, and business model.
🧮 How is it calculated?
🏛️ Why is it important?
It helps assess operational scale, labor intensity, and cost structure. Combined with revenue and profit, it enables key metrics like revenue per employee or productivity.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- A high headcount can signal operational complexity – but also significant growth capacity.
- Revenue per employee is a key indicator of efficiency.
- Especially useful for comparing tech, industrial, or service-heavy companies.
📘 Turnover per employee
📈 What is it?
Revenue per employee indicates how much revenue a company generates on average per employee – a key measure of efficiency and productivity.
🧮 How is it calculated?
The employee count is typically taken from the most recent annual report.
🏛️ Why is it important?
This metric helps compare business models – especially between labor-intensive and technology-driven companies. A high value suggests automation, operational efficiency, or strong value creation per head.
🧮 Calculation
🎯 What does this mean for investors?
- A high revenue per employee indicates a scalable and margin-strong business model.
- A low figure may reflect labor-intensive operations or lower value-add.
- Especially helpful when comparing tech companies to industrial or service sectors.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. Stock Analysis
Analyst Opinions
36 Analysts have issued a Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. forecast:
Analyst Opinions
36 Analysts have issued a Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. forecast:
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. Events
Past Events
|
SEP
15
Morgan Stanley 24th Annual Global Healthcare Conference
11 days ago
|
|
SEP
10
12th Annual Cantor Fitzgerald Global Healthcare Conference
16 days ago
|
|
SEP
9
Wells Fargo 21st Annual Healthcare Conference
17 days ago
|
|
JUL
30
Q2 2026 Earnings Call
about 2 months ago
|
|
JUN
9
Goldman Sachs 47th Annual Global Healthcare Conference 2026
4 months ago
|
|
JUN
2
46th Annual William Blair Growth Stock Conference
4 months ago
|
|
MAY
12
Bank of America Global Healthcare Conference 2026
5 months ago
|
|
MAY
5
Q1 2026 Earnings Call
5 months ago
|
|
APR
6
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc., Soleno Therapeutics, Inc. - M&A Call
6 months ago
|
|
MAR
17
Stifel 2026 Virtual CNS Forum
6 months ago
|
|
MAR
9
Leerink Global Healthcare Conference 2026
7 months ago
|
|
MAR
3
TD Cowen 46th Annual Health Care Conference
7 months ago
|
|
FEB
11
Q4 2025 Earnings Call
8 months ago
|
|
JAN
12
44th Annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference
9 months ago
|
|
DEC
16
Special Call - Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc.
9 months ago
|
|
DEC
2
Piper Sandler 37th Annual Healthcare Conference
10 months ago
|
|
NOV
18
Jefferies London Healthcare Conference 2025
10 months ago
|
|
OCT
28
Q3 2025 Earnings Call
11 months ago
|
|
SEP
17
TD Cowen's 5th Annual Novel Mechanisms in Neuropsychiatry & Epilepsy Summit
about one year ago
|
|
SEP
9
Morgan Stanley 23rd Annual Global Healthcare Conference
about one year ago
|
|
SEP
3
Cantor Global Healthcare Conference 2025
about one year ago
|
StocksGuide Free
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Morgan Stanley 24th Annual Global Healthcare Conference
1. Question Answer
Good morning, everyone. I'm Sean Laaman, Head of U.S. Mid-Cap Biotech Equity Research here at Morgan Stanley. Before we commence, to make you aware of some of the important disclosures, see those disclosures at the Morgan Stanley research disclosure website at www.morganstanley.com/researchdisclosures. And if you do have any questions, please reach out and ask your Morgan Stanley sales representative.
With that said, we have the pleasure of welcoming from Neurocrine Biosciences, their CEO, Kyle Gano; and from IR, Todd Tushla. Welcome, gentlemen, and thank you both for your time today.
Thank you.
Maybe just to kick off proceedings before we get into the heart of Neurocrine, just a question -- just a few general questions on the macro side of the equation for biotech. How is the rise of China originated innovation changing, if at all, your competitive outlook? And does it influence your BD and R&D playbook?
It's a great question, very timely at Neurocrine, I know industry-wide. My view of China is that they are a competitive force, but at the same time, they represent an important source of innovation. And I think that those views, I think, at a high level, seem to be diametrically opposed. But a lot of this, I think, would share that same sentiment. And even on the competitive side of the equation, competition can be a good thing. It can bring out the best in all countries, parties involved.
I've seen that at Neurocrine over the years, in particular when it comes to things that we're developing in competitive spaces or commercially. And I'm confident that the United States will do well to compete in this area. But coming back to China, what I've seen over the course of the past decade, a lot of changes in the region. The speed, the quality, the breadth of the science has really improved. And I think that's something that we appreciate. The competitive bar has been risen, in particular, in areas of validated biology.
And for us, that really expands the universe of innovation that Neurocrine and other companies can access. And we have done that in years -- past couple of years, we have been in China and been successful in bringing in mainly earlier-stage assets that are not material for the organization at a high level, but we have used some of the work that they've done to help us accelerate some of our interest in research.
But how does that change things at Neurocrine today? I would say fundamentally, it doesn't change our view on the mix of internal R&D versus business development. It does change in 1 important way, and that is the importance of speed and selectivity; selectivity, I mean by that, what you choose to invest in.
For validated biology, being right about the science is no longer the most important thing. It's really developing a compelling and efficient drug development plan that allows you to be first to market or nearly so and also having that same plan be one that shines a light on all your points of differentiation throughout each point of development. And that's something that you have to keep in mind now as China opens up access to a new source of assets and technologies for companies in the sector.
The other thing I would call out that I think we'll see more and more of, perhaps even at Neurocrine is leaning into the Chinese ecosystem to help accelerate development. And this can occur in 1 of 2 ways, either directly through more CRO type of relationship or from what I'm seeing out there, companies striking collaborations on the same assets and technologies that I just referred to, but allowing their Chinese partner to develop the asset that comes from that collaboration, say, through the end of Phase I.
And then the company here in the U.S. catches that program as it comes over the ocean and finishes the development plan here in the U.S. and then commercializes it. The benefits, again, speed, allows the company to look at that as a multiplier in terms of programs that they can bring into the portfolio per unit of time. It usually comes at a less of a cost, which is a benefit as well, so they can do more with their R&D dollars. And I think it goes back to an earlier remark, it's also a remark. It's also done with very high quality. So for Neurocrine, that doesn't mean we're moving our R&D to China, but it does put China squarely in the global community of what we want to access to make Neurocrine better and faster for drug development.
Great answer. Thank you, Kyle. And the next question on AI. So are you implementing AI across your business? And can you give an example where it might have changed the decision, a cost outcome or even a POS?
Yes. No, I think it's another great question. For AI and machine learning technologies, it's been something that we've been very deliberate and intentional incorporating to our organization. It's actually in our corporate goals now. There's an element of that last year and this year as well. We have brought in over a year ago, I should say, in 2025, OpenAI, and that's certainly a tool that's used broadly across the organization. Now we also have Anthropic through Claude that we're using across the organization now. So both of those are available for our employees.
I would separate productivity gains from claims about AI suddenly changing or transforming research and development. And I would like to touch on the productivity gains piece first, and I'll come back to R&D. But on the productivity gains side of the equation, there's a lot of near-term opportunity I see for Neurocrine. Employees have adopted it in several different ways, but I can see it accelerating some of their workflow. I've seen it being used in areas of the company that interrogate large data sets, able to move through that more quickly.
There's a lot of redundant tasks that are just very tedious in nature that have been minimized. And just generally, information and knowledge that individual groups might have has been made much more accessible across the organization, and that's benefited us as well. So I've seen it in medicinal chemistry, chemical development chemistry broadly, translational science, clinical development, clinical trial execution. And I would expect that to continue as we look at the next year or so.
The challenge, I think, where most of us run into problems is how do you monetize or see if you're making improvements across your organization with the technology. And for us, it's all about outcomes and KPIs, standards that we can attach to specific problems. And in every organization, there are just repetitive decisions that come up. And for us using AI, can we make those decisions faster? When it comes to repetitive tasks or activities, can we get through those more quickly or in a more cost-effective manner?
When it comes to clinical trials, can we enroll our trials more quickly, trials more quickly with AI tools? Ultimately, what it is going to come down to when we think about an organization in its entirety, can you move through more science without having to proportionately increase the size of your organization? So I know we often talk about increases in headcount or decreases in headcount for AI. I think in the near term, the opportunity is, can you [ minimize ] your growth using AI based on some of the outcomes I just described.
So those are the areas that we'll look for improvements and how we'll look to measure them over the next couple of years. I do want to come back to the R&D side of the equation. I think right now, it's still early days and how we think about improving probabilities of technical success across the R&D portfolio. And the reason for that is the whole idea of machine learning, AI is that you need to have data populate your project in order for it to get reasonable outputs. But if you're working in novel areas of biology, it's very unreasonable to expect what you get from that project or from that programming, if you will, is going to be helpful in improving your probability of technical success. So that's a more mid- to longer-term view. Right now, I think there's a lot of near-term opportunities for us.
Wonderful. Thank you, Kyle. And last question before we dig into the specifics of Neurocrine. But which policy variable, FDA, Medicare negotiations, MFN, tariffs or global pricing matters most to your economics? And what have you changed, if anything, because of it?
Well, we just had our first one-on-one here before this meeting. And I can tell you, it all goes back to INGREZZA and our Medicare negotiation. So this is our version of the Inflation Reduction Act. For INGREZZA, we're exposed in a couple of different ways. Two specifically, directly, we have our IRA moment or MFP, our maximum fair prices implemented in 2029. But indirectly, we're in a 2-product category and our competitor in this space has their IRA moment 2 years before our own. So there's an unintended consequence, if you will, for MFP and MFP adjacent products that we work through.
So I think that's something that is tangible to Neurocrine, unique to Neurocrine, and we spend a lot of time talking to you all about that. And it's probably worth maybe another question on how that looks for us. But for me, when I think about policy, I'd like to separate policy on a singular product like INGREZZA and policy and how it might affect our long-term strategy. And at Neurocrine, we're not building the company to predict what comes out of Washington. That's a slippery slope.
But we are trying to make the company as strong and as resilient and each and every day make it better across those 2 metrics. And for us, that means diversifying the source of our growth and the durability of our growth opportunities. So INGREZZA is a great medicine. We've guided to $2.825 billion to $2.875 billion this year. The market continues to grow double digit each year. We have patent life out to 2038, but it's not just the growth opportunity through INGREZZA, we have now CRENESSITY, a medicine for congenital adrenal hyperplasia that's on an annual run rate of $750 million now.
So that's another piece of our growth story. And more recently, we acquired VYKAT XR, which we're about a little more than a year into launch, and we're about a $400 million run rate right now. So a lot of growth across our commercial portfolio. And when it comes to the durability of our growth, it really focuses our attention on the pipeline. So we've got an industry-leading muscarinic and depression pipeline now with osavampator and direclidine that will read out Phase IIIs next year. We see that as a near-term opportunity for growth. And then we've shown our ability to have a sustainable R&D engine, putting new programs into the clinic each and every year. So ultimately, the best hedge against policy for us is multiple growing products, a deep diversified portfolio, good cash position and the financial capacity to keep investing despite what happened externally.
Sure. great answer. I mean if you go back 18 to 24 months, Neurocrine was largely INGREZZA story, but now you've got 3 commercial products. You've got pretty catalyst-rich sort of 6 to 18 months coming up. You've got 2 major Phase III readouts next year in osavampator and direclidine. How would you characterize the outlook for the business through 2027?
Yes. We've really been focusing on building the business, not just inside our commercial portfolio, but outside across our portfolio as well. And that means adding new programs to Phase I and advancing those programs that were in early stage to mid-stage and of course, Phase III. But maybe just to start from the top, and I won't go through all the programs in detail here, but 3 first-in-class medicines in Q2 generated almost $1 billion in net sales.
And we think about Neurocrine, one of the messages I'd like to leave with you all is that the company has really evolved into a diversified multiproduct biopharmaceutical company. So when we talk about the 3 first-in-class medicines, you got INGREZZA continuously delivering on a commercial -- from a commercial perspective, you've got a great launch with CRENESSITY, and now we're integrating VYKAT XR. Diversification is obvious there, now 25% of our revenue in Q2 came from CRENESSITY and VYKAT XR. It used to be just an INGREZZA story.
And as I mentioned, we've got other commercial products now to talk about. And then when it comes to those medicines delivering for us, they generate a ton of cash flow, and that's able to help fund our late-stage pipeline and also our emerging early-stage pipeline and continuously giving us the flexibility for business development. So it really sets the stage quite well for what we want to do for the company moving forward. It does go back to executing on the clinical trials that we set in motion a couple of years ago.
If we do those well, then that's when the data readouts come next year. Osavampator, direclidine Phase III readouts starting the second half of next year into early 2028. We have Phase II readouts with our next-generation VMAT2 inhibitor, which is NBI-890, as well as another muscarinic program with schizophrenia in early '28. And the list goes on and on. The idea is that the data catalysts that we have next year will be more of the norm. And that will set the company up quite nicely to hopefully deliver a new medicine every couple of years.
Wonderful. Maybe just to hone in on INGREZZA. So reacceleration in growth. We've got an upgrade for this year. What's driving that?
Well, we've learned a lot since we've launched the medicine in 2017. I think through trial and error, if you will, the 2 things that really accelerate growth or magnify our investments is having the right share of voice out there. So that means the right-sized sales force. And we did go through a sales force expansion this year. It was concluded in Q1. We saw the benefits of that already earlier in the year, and we expect that to continue to compound as we get through the remainder of the year.
So share of voice, sales force sizing, that's very important and also having strong access, and we've got that as well. With INGREZZA today, we cover about 70% of all Medicare beneficiary lives, and that puts us in a good spot to get access for the patients that need the medicine. Those are the 2 main drivers on that. And of course, messaging the data generation that we've had over time, we've shown good data on quality of life with our validated instrument. We've shown good remission data, 60% of patients on INGREZZA are symptom-free. And we've also shown recently good PET data, which shows target occupancy that's superior to our competitor in the space. All that gets to get pushed through that sales force. And that's a very compelling story for us out there.
Awesome. I've got a couple of INGREZZA pricing questions. So net price, I believe, was expected to decline 4% to 5% this year. Is that still the right framework heading into 2027?
Yes. So for us, the headwinds on the 4% to 5% price delta this year really comes from the contracting that we did last year. So the 4% to 5% is relative to last year. This year, our price per script, our revenue per script has been relatively consistent throughout the year, and we expect that to be the case as we think about the remainder of this year. Of course, in 2027, our competitor in this space is going through the first year of where their MFP is implemented.
And we do expect some price concessions with the plans, the payers that we're currently on contract with to maintain that same level of access for '27. That will be pretty nominal. But I would also point out that we do have an increase in the statutory rebate that we pay for sales that go through Medicare Part D, in particularly in the catastrophic phase, that phase in that all companies that have the same exemption of us, the specified small manufacturer exemption. That statutory rebate will go from 2% this year to 5% next year, and that's on the WAC.
Sure. Thinking longer term, so you just answered my next 2 pricing questions. But how do you maintain a stable growth on the top and bottom line through '29 implementation year? And how much does that answer depend on CRENESSITY continuing to outperform?
Well, in terms of INGREZZA, it's worth repeating that we continuously see double-digit volume growth out there each year. The market is incredibly robust. We've got about 10% of the 800,000 or so under the care of a VMAT2 inhibitor. So there's plenty of room to grow in this marketplace still. And even despite the price concessions that we pay next year, '27 and '28 are going to be revenue growth years as well as volume growth years for us, of course. So 2029, we do have our IRA moment there.
Our MFP, our maximum fair price should be implemented. We start those negotiations next year. And recall, because we had a small biotech exemption, we know that's going to be within a band of about a 25% to 34% discount off of this non-FAMP number. This is the Federal Average Manufacturing Price. It's a little bit nuanced on this. But ultimately, it's a number that you're discounting from a 2026 value that comes into our negotiations. We would expect revenue to dip in 2029.
So what it means for overall enterprise-wide revenue is going to be a function of how well CRENESSITY and VYKAT XR grows and certainly happy and glad that we have these 2 medicines in our portfolio because they will be growing over this time frame. We also have the opportunity to potentially see osavampator and direclidine pay off over this time frame and be commercial products in that 2029 time frame as well. It probably will offset coming out of the launch necessarily the revenue that we'd want to see for 2 blockbuster medicines like those 2, which we believe they will be. But we have a lot of financial capacity to continue looking externally as well if we need to.
Sure. Moving on to CRENESSITY, very strong Q2 numbers, more than triple what you did in revenue like a year ago. I think you're now 15% Yes, 15%. So 6 quarters in, what do you need to see before we'll be able to get some revenue guidance?
Yes. This comes up now and again in investor one-on-ones. What I would say is, like you said, we're only 6 quarters in. And the launch had been great, but we're still learning a lot about the marketplace, learning a lot about the endocrinology; community; the patients, where, when and who they seek treatment from. So it took us 4 years before we gave INGREZZA guidance. We expect we're going to end this year with some strong momentum with CRENESSITY, and that's something we're going to have to revisit ahead of the Q4 call next year. But I understand you probably want it.
Yes. We do. We want everything. Still on CRENESSITY, is the next leg of growth like adding prescribers? Or is it deepening the number of patients per prescriber?
Yes. I would say it's a little bit of both. As a reference point, there's really 3 sources of where patients seek treatment. There's the centers of excellence. There's about 20 of those, that covers about 15% of the 20,000 or so patients who have classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia. There's pediatric endocrinologists, there's about 1,000 of those. And then you have the community-based endocrinologists, which is about 8,000 and one of the nice things about the launch that was surprising to us in a good way was we're seeing utilization across all 3 sources of that business.
And so as you would expect, the centers of excellence, although we're not fully penetrated there by a long shot, have more prescriptions on a per MD basis. Whereas on the community endocrinology, they may have 1 or 2 patients. And so I think what's going to happen over time as CRENESSITY becomes the standard of care, there's going to be a network effect that's going to help those community endocrinologists who aren't yet treating a patient to treat their 1 or 2 patients and for the folks that are treating to go deeper. So I think the answer is a little bit of both is where growth is going to come from.
Sure. And you also initiated a Phase II in children from 3 months under 4 years. Like how commercially meaningful is that youngest cohort?
Yes, it's super meaningful. There's -- about 1/3 of the patient population is pediatric, and we're approved for age 4 and up right now. The Phase II that you referenced is 3 months to 4 years old. And what we know is that with CRENESSITY, we have a chance to interdict and change the trajectory of especially pediatric patient's life because you know steroids are bad for the brain, bad for the blood, bad for the bone. We can have an overall impact on changing the course of overall hype for these pediatric kids. And so treating earlier has a more profound impact over time. And so we'll get that data sometime in the 2028 time frame.
Wonderful. And last question on CRENESSITY. So looking down the path to Vertex/Crinetics, like how do you...
And that was a big acquisition price. Kind of we are already validating that there is a market there in classic CAH, but now you have Vertex further validating it.
Sure. Yes. I'm with you on that one, Todd. How do you compare CRF1 inhibition with ACTH receptor antagonism. And can the market support both?
Yes. What I would say on that is we work upstream in HPA axis and they're further downstream. Instead of diving too much into the competitive aspects here, they're still several years away from coming to market on the adult front, even further on peds. Meanwhile, we're at 15% market share 6 quarters in. We're becoming the standard of care treatment. And we're making it difficult, not just for a competitor with CRENESSITY's label, which has got uncompromised efficacy, but also uncompromised safety and tolerability. So setting a high bar with CRENESSITY for others, including ourselves with our follow-on peptide that's in development. It's going to be tough to displace a standard of care kind of treatment that we're seeing evolve with CRENESSITY. And time will tell if the competitor product comes to market, but we like how we're positioned right now.
Great. Moving on to VYKAT XR. So there was a joint statement in early August from the Foundation for Prader-Willi, which flagged some deaths and adverse events. And there have been 800-plus patients prescribed since launch. What's your read on those data? And what is the process, if anything, from here with the FDA?
Yes. No, I think it's a good reminder just to level set on the Prader-Willi disease state. These are patients that are -- it's a very serious and complicated disease, and these patients have many comorbidities. At a high level, mortality is multiples above the general population. The mortality rate increases for each decade of life. Life expectancy is in the mid- to late 40s, at least based on what you can find in the literature today. So I think it's a view that needs to be shared.
I think the physicians that came out and shared this letter was shining a light on the complexities of this disease state and also the benefit risk profile of VYKAT XR, in particular, with patients that are very severe in terms of their symptoms. So at a high level, we largely agree with a lot of the things that were pointed out in the letter that came out during the course of our diligence and actually was the emphasis -- has been the emphasis of our educational efforts that we have planned on and are doing now post close of the acquisition.
So right now, it's really a function of making sure that we're doing all we can with real-time data, everything that you mentioned that came out in the FAERS database or the AIMS now is really information that we solicit using our specialty pharmacy. And when you're first in disease, these things do become visible for the first time in patients' physicians' lives. They haven't seen this in a registry type of format. So we have a lot of work ahead of us in terms of patient education, in particular, on the side of physicians, helping them identify the ideal patient and also how to manage and monitor adverse events.
And that's going to be done in a hands-on way with Neurocrine with the help of our specialty pharmacy. But today, just as a reminder, help get us all on the same page, we have over 1,400 patient years of experience now with VYKAT XR. We have patients that have been on the medicine for more than 7 years and benefiting quite well. So I know it's hard to look at the news and get drawn into the safety pieces of the disease of VYKAT XR but there are a lot of patients that are benefiting as well. And that came out through the course of our diligence that there is a compelling benefit-risk profile for VYKAT XR in the Prader-Willi syndrome patient population. It's really on us now to make sure that we have all the tools in place for physicians and families and patients to do well in the medicine, and I know we're up for the challenge.
I think what was interesting following that letter, there were a number of KOL calls to ask about the letter. And largely, all of them that I read were the response was this is nothing new. We knew all about this. So -- and it's part of the awareness campaign that we're going to drive forward.
Got you. Thank you, Todd. That's interesting. I guess sort of commercially on VYKAT XR, what are you watching most closely to evaluate -- I mean, I know you're already done valuation, but to evaluate the longer-term outlook? Is it new starts, discontinuations or persistence?
I'm going to lean on what Todd said about CRENESSITY. It's probably a function of all the sales. I will say that we're starting in a good position from the perspective that new patient starts, enrollment forms, however you want to look at it, has been relatively steady over the past couple of quarters. What we've been looking at is the discontinuation rate over time. I think initially, what you would see in any orphan disease or any first-in-disease medicine is that there is a bolus of patients that come in.
They're excited about having a new treatment option, and they get on the medicine and they try it for the first time. The most severe patients and by that, the most severe, I mean, the ones where the hyperphagia is quite severe were the ones that are coming into the real-world setting with prescription of VYKAT XR. And that's where some complications were having in those particular patients in terms of the adverse events that we're seeing just in that patient population were given rise to the concerns that we've seen in the physician community.
That's a long way of saying that what we saw were discontinuations that exceeded what we saw in the Phase III setting. And we have the ability to see when patients start medicine in a given month, and we can track them over time from 1 month to the next month and so forth. And what we can see now with about a year's worth of data is that the discontinuation rate as it turns into 1 year is about 20% to 25%. So what we see is a good steady-state number for us is to have a discontinuation rate in the 25% to 30% number that includes persistence of going in 1 year to the next.
But once you get that into a steady state position with the steady enrollment that we've seen, we do expect to have sequential growth as we exit this year into 2027. So it's all about the education piece that I mentioned before and making sure that we've identified the right patients, physicians know what to look for in terms of AEs. They know how to manage it, and I think we'll be in a much better place.
Wonderful. Thank you. Maybe to move on to some pipeline questions now. So we look at direclidine. We look at the COBENFY launch, which has been slower than what most would have anticipated. What do you believe Neurocrine needs to show with direclidine to give investors confidence that you've got a good commercial story here?
Well, I think for the antipsychotics in general, I'll put COBENFY into that category because I think we're seeing the same thing is that everyone knows that you get your foot in the door on this therapeutic category in general by moving into schizophrenia. It's a patient population that has continuously the highest unmet need. It sets a price point for you to branch out into other indication and it's the most straightforward development pathway to commercialization.
So what we've seen from COBENFY, at least in my view and our view, is something very consistent with other antipsychotics, the trajectory is pretty much in line with what we thought we would see. But to really get to the larger numbers in terms of valuation revenue, if you will, you really have to branch out to other indications. And we've seen that through CAPLYTA most recently went from schizophrenia to bipolar to MDD. You can look at that same trajectory as the other antipsychotics.
To really do well with muscarinics, you have to move outside of schizophrenia. And I think that's something that BMS appreciates. That's why they're in ADP and bipolar. That's why we have gone into bipolar mania as a second indication nearly in parallel with our efforts in schizophrenia. So we're excited about what we have, but we're also realistic in appreciating that the numbers that we're all wanting to see in terms of revenue are going to be achieved by branching out in other indications, and that's something that we'll be looking at moving forward.
Sure. Thank you, Kyle. And moving on, osavampator -- maybe a very -- for investors, a quick snapshot and overview of the program. When we expect -- when do we expect the Phase III readouts? And how should investors think about differentiation versus esketamine?
Sure. So this differentiation is quite easy. It's an oral tablet that you can take from the convenience of your own home just like any other antidepressant Great safety, great tolerability. There's no monitoring required. There's no devicing that's required to administer the product through an inhalation type of delivery mechanism. So very simple, easy to use and very much consistent with how patients take their medicines today. So I think that's the real take-home there in terms of differentiation.
In terms of the program itself, we have 3 replicate Phase III trials that are ongoing. Each trial is 200 subjects in sample size. It's a 1:1 ratio of active to placebo. So 50-50, and that we believe will be helpful in terms of minimizing the placebo response. It's testing the 1 milligram dose that we saw good results in the Phase II versus placebo, and we're looking at the MADRS at day 56. So that's the plan in terms of the placebo-controlled trials.
Those patients roll over to an open-label study, we also have a randomized withdrawal study that's running in parallel with this as well. So if everything goes well in terms of recruitment, what we're talking about is Phase III data in the second half of next year. And then if those are positive, we would play out the open-label safety data. Recall, we needed at least 100 patients out to 1 year as part of the ICH guidelines for submitting an NDA. And all that wraps up, we'll be able to put an NDA in the hands of the FDA for review somewhere in 2028 with a launch possible somewhere in 2029.
Amazing. Thank you. Still moving on, just in the interest of time, I do have more questions on that one. But just I want to get to the CRF2 and obesity program. So 2118, so once-weekly CRF2 agonist that ended Phase I in May, signal seeking next year. And what we thought was interesting is that Roche's Genentech acquired an asset from Hanmi. I think they paid $190 million upfront, $2.3 billion in milestones sort of doubling down and validating the area, we think.
But how do you interpret that transaction in the context of 2118? And does it increase your confidence in the industry that the industry is converging around CRF2 as a differentiated mechanism for preserving or improving lean mass during weight loss?
Yes. No, I think that was a pretty big deal by Roche to invest almost $200 million in Phase I and of course, all the hard milestones that come with that. That's a pretty significant deal. That is -- I'm guessing they saw something there. CRF and CRF2 is something near and dear to Neurocrine's heart. And for me personally, I in-licensed one of the very first CRF2 agonist from the Salk Institute about 25 years ago and took that forward into some Phase I and Phase II trials for a very acute heart failure indication.
And we had signs that we were on to something very special back then. Unfortunately, for those that know the Neurocrine story, we couldn't develop everything that we wanted to back then and had to discontinue that effort. But for those that were around at that time and are still at Neurocrine today, we always knew that we wanted to revisit this biology. And fortunately, we brought in some folks from Eli Lilly that worked in the same space on around the time that we did, including our Chief Scientific Officer, Jude Onyia, and we reengineered peptides in this space to be longer acting.
Our first molecule that we had, had a half-life of about 15 minutes. Now we're out to 1 week. So these are things that you can do now with all the tools that are available to us. But ultimately, the idea is to get to -- it comes with an appreciation that obesity is a disease of CNS. You start there CRF2 is in the brain. We like leveraging the things that we know about CNS drug development, about CRF biology. It seems like a perfect match for us. And what we've seen after engineering some of the molecules that we have, very good weight loss data in the DIO model in the mouse that shows weight loss comparable to what we see from the incretins.
But to your point, and similar to what Hanmi and others have demonstrated, the weight loss is on the fat side of the equation, not on the muscle. And we've also seen other cardiac and renal benefits as we've seen over time with our work in R2. We also see a differential tolerability profile. It's not going through the GLP pathway. So we don't expect to see nausea, vomiting, those types of things that you would see with the medicines that are available today.
Other than pointing out those kind of differentiation attributes of CRF2, there's another reason why we like this type of approach. In psychiatry, we all know that we're dealing with subjective endpoints, and you don't know definitively what you have until you've completed your Phase III. The only thing that's guaranteed is your expense. I'm joking here a little bit. But we appreciate that there's challenges with psychiatry that you can mitigate by being in endocrinology, specifically in obesity.
You get biomarkers in Phase I, you're dealing with objective endpoints instead of subjective endpoints. You can actually pick winners, the molecules you want to take in the Phase II as early as Phase Ib. And that's really refreshing for Neurocrine. We can get a nice balance in the portfolio about risk benefit and probabilities of technical success. And of course, I give some benefit to us having a rich history in CRF to win here. So I'm excited about what we have.
Wonderful. Well, we're just out of time. So thank you, gentlemen, for your time today. Pleasure to host you. and thanks so much.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Morgan Stanley 24th Annual Global Healthcare Conference
Neurocrine pitched a diversified commercial story with near-term Phase III catalysts, policy risks around Medicare pricing, and focus on R&D speed and selectivity.
📊 Key Message
- Central point: Company has shifted from an INGREZZA-centric model to a diversified, multi-product biopharma business with three commercial products driving cash flow.
- Catalysts: Multiple near-term clinical readouts (osavampator and direclidine Phase III next year) plus ongoing early-stage programs should produce regular data events.
- Risk posture: Medicare negotiation (Inflation Reduction Act) creates a material pricing event in 2029 for INGREZZA, so management is prioritizing product diversification and speed in BD/R&D.
🎯 Strategic Highlights
- China access: Management views China as both competitor and source of earlier-stage assets; strategy is selective BD to accelerate programs without shifting core R&D offshore.
- AI adoption: AI tools are embedded company-wide for productivity gains (OpenAI, Anthropic) but expected R&D impact is mid-to-long term and will be measured by outcomes/KPIs.
- Commercial mix: INGREZZA guidance of $2.825–$2.875B for the year, CRENESSITY at roughly $750M annual run rate, and VYKAT XR at ≈$400M run rate support growth and fund pipeline investment.
🔭 New Information
- Phase III timing: Osavampator has three 200-patient trials with readouts expected H2 next year; NDA potential in 2028 with launch possible in 2029 if positive.
- VYKAT safety: Post-launch signals highlighted by advocates; company reports ~1,400 patient-years and one‑year discontinuation settling around 20–25%.
- Obesity program: Weekly CRF2 agonist (2118) shows preclinical weight-loss favoring fat loss vs. muscle and benefits from industry validation (Roche/Hanmi deal).
❓ Analyst Q&A
- Pricing risk: Detailed Q&A on INGREZZA’s exposure to Medicare negotiations (maximum fair price in 2029) and expected revenue pressure that management plans to offset via other products and launches.
- Launch execution: CRENESSITY growing across centers, pediatrics and community endocrinologists; management will consider revenue guidance after more launch learning (revisit before Q4 next year).
- Safety & persistence: For VYKAT XR analysts pressed on adverse-event monitoring, physician education, and persistence metrics; management emphasized specialty pharmacy data and education to steady uptake.
⚡ Bottom Line
- Implication: Neurocrine is positioned for a transition from single‑product reliance to multi‑product growth with meaningful near‑term clinical catalysts, but investors must weigh execution on launches, safety management for VYKAT XR, and the 2029 Medicare pricing impact on INGREZZA.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — 12th Annual Cantor Fitzgerald Global Healthcare Conference
1. Question Answer
All right. I think we're ready to get started. Welcome, everyone. This is Josh Schimmer from the Cantor biotech equity research team. We're very pleased to have from Neurocrine Biosciences, Matt Abernethy, Chief Financial Officer; Eric Benevich, Chief Commercial Officer; and Todd Tushla, who heads up Investor Relations. Matt, maybe I just kind of want to set the stage here, give us a snapshot of where Neurocrine is today and if there are aspects of the story that you think investors are really missing or not appreciated.
Well, first of all, thanks for hosting us. It's always good to be with you. And good to see your name is Bill Joshua and I'm Matthew. So we got our formal names going on today. So that's always a good thing. We will be making forward-looking statements, and so we direct you to our SEC filings. So we have a lot of great things going on at the company. It's amazing to think just 2 years ago, we were a single product company. Now we're a multiproduct company. Going from one product with INGREZZA to now INGREZZA, CRENESSITY and VYKAT XR.
Last quarter, we had about $1 billion in sales. And it's just -- we pinch ourselves and find ourselves quite fortunate to have 3 growing brands, 3 brands that are helping many patients. And I would just say kudos to the teams that have been involved in that and being able to help so many patients across these different therapeutic areas. In addition to that, if you just rewind 3 to 5 years ago, we probably had 3 pipeline programs. Now we have close to 20. And you think about where is our pipeline and you stack that up against anybody else in the industry, I don't know if there's anybody that has a broader bigger pipeline from Phase I to Phase III than what Neurocrine has.
And I think that's reflective of the strategy that the team has laid out in terms of investing in early-stage research that's now allowing us to put new programs into the clinic, and that spans psychiatry. That's our later-stage programs, neurology, immunology, which we'll touch on more later this year and then also endocrinology. So a lot of great things going on in the pipeline. Of course, the headline are there are 2 major Phase III programs that we're going to have next year. One of them is osavampator, which is an AMPA potentiator that's being studied in major depression. And then we also have direclidine, which is a muscarinic program that is focused initially in schizophrenia.
That data will read out in 2027 and 2028. Those are transformational programs for our company. And so we're looking forward to executing those trials and getting to that data. And then lastly, strong financial position that gives us a lot of flexibility. I think you mentioned what are investors missing or maybe might be overlooked. And I know today, it's important we'll get into nuances of each of our brands. We'll get into nuances of our pipeline program, and it's important for investors to understand those nuances.
But I also would encourage folks to take a step back and look at Neurocrine. In the elevator after our meeting earlier this morning, I was writing up and somebody says to me, Wow, I was -- I've been an investor 15, 20 years ago in Neurocrine. And he says, now you're a big real company. And I think that's an appropriate perspective. We have 3 products with durable top line growth, durable cash flow, and we're working to have a durable, sustainable R&D engine. And I think those allow itself to have us valued in the long run as an enterprise, not as a single product company, not as a binary outcome from a data readout. But we are a company striving to help as many patients as possible, and that's the mission that we're on today. So we're looking forward to being here, and we'll take your questions. However you want to go, Josh.
Sure. Thank you. Well, why don't we begin with INGREZZA. What's probably so remarkable about INGREZZA. It's kind of a product that keeps on giving growth, right, and becoming such an important part of Neurocrine, but it's also a product that's -- for a product that's been on the market for so long, there's still so much to talk about, right? Maybe we can start with the recent sales force expansion that you've completed and how do you think that positions now INGREZZA in the coming quarters and years, especially as you undergo some of the dynamics we'll talk about next under the IRA.
Yes. I guess I'll take a crack at that. Hi, everyone. I'm Eric, and that is my full name. So for those of you that may be a little bit less familiar with INGREZZA, when we think about INGREZZA, we primarily think about the tardive dyskinesia indication. That's the vast majority of our business. It's been on the market for 9-plus years now. And Josh, as you were saying, it keeps delivering robust growth. In fact, in Q2 of this year, we reported a record NRx or new patient starts. We also reported record TRx, which is unusual for a product this far into its life cycle, though I will say that it has a long runway ahead with exclusivity out to 2038.
So if this was a baseball game, I'd say we're in like the fourth inning or fifth inning maybe. But bottom line is that this is still a rapidly growing category, the tardive dyskinesia market. We're on a pace this year for growth in the mid-teens. And certainly, we expect to be able to continue to deliver robust growth going forward. You were talking about '27 and beyond. One of the investments that we recently made was an expansion of our field sales team, and that was completed at the end of Q1 and the expanded team rolled out in Q2 of this year. So it's relatively fresh.
I would say that the expanded sales force is a contributor to the momentum that we've seen, but certainly not the only investment that's delivering these results. This is the most recent expansion. And as we were chatting about earlier, over the years, we've expanded our field sales team 4x. And I think that's really in response to the growth of the category, the growth of the prescriber base for VMAT2 inhibitors. At the time that we announced this most recent expansion last fall, we said that the base of VMAT2 riders had grown by 30% over the prior 2 years.
And so in some ways, every time we expand our team, it's to keep up with the growth of the category to make sure that we're calling on the prescribers that are treating these patients with diagnosed or nondiagnosed tardive dyskinesia. We estimate today that the size of the prevalent population is at least 800,000 in the U.S. Roughly half of those folks have been given a diagnosis to explain their uncontrolled abnormal movements. And yet only about 10% of TD sufferers are currently being treated with one of the 2 approved VMAT2 inhibitors.
So there's a lot of headroom from an organic growth perspective. And certainly, the investments that we make, whether it's in sales force or whether it's in branded DTC, medical education, omnichannel marketing, they all work together to continue to drive recognition, diagnosis and treatment with INGREZZA. So we feel really good about the first 9 years of the launch, but our aspiration is to continue to drive diagnosis and treatment with INGREZZA because there's a whole lot of people still that could be benefiting from treatment.
What's the extent of the sales force expansion that went from when to when? And when do you expect that to really start to reflect in sales? Is it third quarter?
Yes. I would say, based on our historical experience, it does take a couple of quarters to, I would say, have the sort of tangible full benefit of a sales force expansion. The TD market is a little bit different than other categories within psychiatry or behavioral health. Our folks, they have a little bit of a broader scope of role than maybe what you see in antidepressants or antipsychotics. They do a lot of disease state education. They really help educate the providers, especially those that are earlier in career or newer in behavioral health to understand drug-induced movement disorders to distinguish TD from other hyperkinetic or hypokinetic movement disorders, certainly educating them on VMAT2 inhibitors and INGREZZA in particular.
So it takes a little bit longer to get up to speed when you're coming into this therapeutic area. I do think that some of the momentum that we saw in Q2 was due to the expanded sales team that I also believe that we'll see the full impact of the expansion as we exit this year. So ultimately, our learnings as we go forward is each time we do an expansion, I think we get a little bit better at telescoping that time from onboarding to effectiveness. The way that we look at the impact of the expanded team is their ability to drive new patient starts. So it's really about NRx. And ultimately, that's one of the reasons that we have a lot of confidence going into next year.
So $2.85 billion is the midpoint of our guidance range this year, and that reflects 13% year-over-year growth. And included in that is a 4% price headwind. So when you put in context how is INGREZZA growing today and how is the overall TD market growing today, our underlying volume is in the mid- to upper teens. And that's quite significant when you think about how promotionally sensitive the market is to the investments that Eric has been alluding to.
So we continue to invest behind INGREZZA as a growth engine. We understand it's going to be profitable to us all the way until our IP exclusivity window ends in 2038. There'll be some different nuances, and I'm sure we'll talk through those different chapters in terms of price.
Why don't we do that now? That's a perfect segue into '27, '28, '29 because there's a unique shift each year, whether it's catastrophic exposure, whether it's AUSTEDO being negotiated, whether it's INGREZZA being negotiated. Kind of take us through how you anticipate each year playing out primarily with regards to price, price headwinds and access?
Yes. So access is incredibly important in this class. And that's something that we found last year once we were added on to formularies, we went from about 30-some percent to it was about 70% coverage in Med D plans. And I think that's part of the reason why you're seeing stronger volume growth this year as Eric and I have been alluding to.
So preserving access is incredibly important. So the questions we get around 2027 have to do with our competitor has gone through a negotiation with the government where there is a defined MFP. And they're going to be covered up by 100% of plans by statute. So the question has been what is going to happen to INGREZZA within all of these formularies. Fortunately, where we sit today, we do feel as if we're going to be able to maintain coverage at the same levels that we have today. And that was incredibly important strategically as we negotiate -- or as we navigate 2027 and 2028 before our official IRA MFP moment.
So how to think about 2027, there's 2 price headwinds. One is statutory where you go from a 2% statutory rebate to a 5% statutory rebate, and that's because we have the small biotech exemption and the phase-in of the catastrophic coverage rebate. So that's a direct price headwind. The second is to maintain that access, we have had to offer some modest rebates that would allow us to preserve access. But when you take a step back and you think about the underlying volume in the market, what we expect to achieve, we absolutely expect to have strong growth still next year. It will just be a bit offset by these pricing dynamics that we highlighted.
In 2028, we do have another step-up of statutory rebate and price going from 5% to 8%, and that's by statute, but don't see any other price headwinds at the moment. And then we get to our IRA moment in 2029. And fortunately, our IRA negotiation was pushed out 2 years based upon qualifying for the small biotech exemption. In addition to that, we have a defined range of what the potential outcome of negotiation is between 25% discount to 34% discount from a metric called non-FAMP. So there will be a price impact in 2029. There will likely be a dip in overall revenue for INGREZZA as you transition from '28 to '29, but still a very profitable brand and growing from there.
Just one clarifying point. The statutory rebate that Matt was describing applies only to our Medicare business, which is about 2/3 of our volume. So it goes from 2% this year to a 5% next year to 8% in 2028. And that's across all of the Medicare business.
Yes. Got it. Did the 4% price headwind in '26 include that kind of 2% catastrophic exposure, you factored that in?
Yes. In 2025, it was 1%. And then in 2026, it was 2%. So it did contribute about 1% of that year-on-year price impact. But the larger price impact this year had to do with gaining formulary coverage in the middle of 2025.
So kind of inferring, it sounds like '28 may come in again around 4%, maybe even a little higher if you've got that 3% step-up plus some discounting to stay on formulary?
In '28?
'27.
'27. Yes, we haven't been given the formal guide. We'll see where CMS lands with formularies and finalize that, and we will give an update either later this year or as part of our guide early next year.
And then when you get to '29, as you enter into that 25% to 34% discount to non-FAMP. I guess, first, as we clarified this morning, that's actually versus 2021 non-FAMP with some adjustments. But also at that time, the catastrophic obligation will go away as an offset. Are there other offsets to consider other reimbursement dynamics that will kick in, in '29?
Yes. What goes away in '29 when you have a negotiated maximum fair price for Medicare is the catastrophic contribution, like we described, that's being phased in now, that goes away and any voluntary rebate agreements go away. So any contracting that we do today, that goes away.
That's quite a potentially meaningful offset so that 2029 impacts, even with that, you don't think volume growth can keep that franchise flat that year.
It's hard to sit here today and give a 2029 guide. I don't want to dismiss the impact of the negotiated price. And we will get to that being known actually in 2027 by the end of next year. And once we get through that negotiated price window, hopefully, we'll be able to provide a bit more color as to what to expect in 2029. But there is also an element to that, that it bleeds into best price for Medicaid and a few other dynamics.
So it's something that we look at as it will be a little bit of a wound, but it's not a generic like event where you have to completely rightsize your business. This is something as we've thought about sales force investments and positioning ourselves for the future, continued investment behind INGREZZA, continued investment behind our VMAT2 franchise, including our follow-on molecule, which we'll have some data on next year, which we would intend to take in as a long-acting injectable. Our view and one of our strategic pillars is to own and continue to dominate the VMAT2 class. And so you do see some aspects within our pipeline that will point us there over this time horizon. So I know the nuances of this might be difficult to grasp.
You do a really good job explaining it.
Well, I look at it as, man, we're quite fortunate to have a medicine that's growing in an underlying market like this with INGREZZA. And it's also nice to have other products like CRENESSITY and VYKAT that contribute to growth. And by the time we get to 2029, Josh, I think the main question will be what's the next major growth chapter for Neurocrine. And I think with the pipeline readouts and the continued evolution of our other brands, that story will become clearer as we get there, and we have a lot of confidence in the future.
Are there any spending offsets in '29 that can help protect the bottom line and continue to grow the bottom line?
I think there's 2 pieces. We'll always look at our cost structure to make sure it's aligned with the opportunity that we have on the top line. With that said, we do have some meaningful data readouts over the coming year or 2. And in particular, if osavampator is positive and we're required to build out a primary care sales channel, for example, those are investments we're going to be very glad to make, and there might be a window of time where we, forsake operating margin to position ourselves to drive longer-term shareholder value. But yes, we will look at cost structures and making sure they're aligned appropriately to the opportunity. But we do have a lot of interesting aspects that could allow for quality investments over the coming years.
Joshua, I would just say that the great thing about our late-stage pipeline, whether you're talking about a osavampator in major depressive disorder or direclidine in schizophrenia, really nice synergy with our existing footprint in psychiatry. So we've established ourselves as a player in psychiatry. Looking forward to the opportunity to bring one or both of those medicines to patients towards the end of the decade. .
Where do you envision the role for a VMAT2 long-acting injectable? What kind of market share do you anticipate being able to generate compared to INGREZZA?
Yes. The way that we're thinking about the opportunity for a long-acting injectable is if you think about patients with serious mental illness in more particular, patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, there's a portion of that patient population that are really noncompliant with oral medicines. And there are several brands of long-acting injectable antipsychotics that are billion dollar drugs as a result.
And so some of these patients have tardive dyskinesia. In fact, there's likely a higher proportion of them that have tardive dyskinesia. But the time they get to a long-acting injectable antipsychotic, they've likely gone through several different oral medicines to get there. And one of the risk factors for TD is the number of prior antipsychotic treatments and the potency of those drugs. So we know that there are some patients that are noncompliant with oral medicines that are on long-acting injectable antipsychotics and as a result, aren't getting treated for their tardive dyskinesia.
So our aspiration was to develop INGREZZA as an LAI formulation. Unfortunately, due to the characteristics of its profile, it's not really compatible with a once monthly or less frequent injection. NBI-'890 is. And so that's one of the aspects of the product profile that we're excited about currently being developed as an oral form, but working on the LAI version of it so that we can offer the opportunity for those patients that are not compliant with oral medicines to still get treated for their TD.
So in terms of the type of penetration you might be able to achieve based on those dynamics?
Yes. It's hard to estimate right now, but we view it as an incremental opportunity. So not necessarily sort of cannibalizing the existing market. These are patients that are not being treated because of their poor compliance with oral medicine.
When you say incremental often and interpret as just modest. Is that what you're implying or incremental add-on, but a substantial add-on to it.
Yes. We can get a little bit more detail when we get further down the road. But the majority of the market opportunity is for the oral form. .
It was a wonderfully crafted response e-mail from Kyle to the Prader-Willi community. Very thoughtful and very attentive to the needs of patients. I think one of the items that came up was a commitment to continue to explore VYKAT XR in the context of potential cardiovascular risk factors. How do you intend on exploring that? Do you have particular trial designs in mind or particular questions you're trying to answer that can help safely position by VYKAT XR in parts of the community that may currently be very hesitant to try it.
This is a devastating disease. It really is it manifests itself at birth and continues to manifest itself all the way until adulthood where many die very young. And so it is a devastating disease that also brings a variety of comorbidities associated with it. And I think what you're alluding to, Josh, is the complexity of those patients and making sure that we can generate data and how to best help and treat and monitor those patients.
So in terms of exact design of that trial, that's something that we're working with the top KOLs to help design. What I can say is there is a formal commitment from all of those KOLs who treat many patients with PWS and are excited about exploring and providing more information to aid in who can be the best patient to select for therapy. But to take a step back, I mean, Prader-Willi's 10,000 patients with hyperphagia, no approved treatment option until VYKAT XR was approved a little over a year ago. And so when we made the acquisition, we really had to gain conviction around 3 things to help substantiate the value we're going to provide.
One is, was there a market need there. And that was the easiest item to overcome. The second piece was, is the medicine -- does the medicine work? And what we were able to explore is we could see for a majority of patients, this medicine does work. It does help their hyperphagia. And this is something that was meaningful to patients and caregivers. The third piece is, could we get comfortable around what the discontinuation rate is, and that is a combination of does the medicine work? And then also, are there any safety aspects that should be considered when titrating up.
And so these are all items that we're very fluent on or at least as fluent as you can get through diligence. And so the aspects of what we're talking about now in the public community, these were all items that we knew we were going to do through diligence. Some of the public letters in the media aspect have only shown a light on this, but these aren't surprising aspects for us to want to continue to invest in these programs to ultimately help as many patients with PWS as possible into the future.
But what kind of growth do you think you can deliver from this franchise before addressing the cardiovascular concerns around the product as you intend to with the clinical trial.
So at the time that we announced the acquisition, it seems like a long time ago, but really, it was just a few months ago. We actually closed on the Soleno acquisition in May. So we've had the VYKAT franchise and the VYKAT team under the Neurocrine umbrella, so to speak, for a relatively short period of time, just a few months. .
Ultimately, we shared our belief at that time, and it's unchanged that VYKAT XR will be a blockbuster drug. It's relatively early in its life cycle. It's only been 5 quarters since it was launched. As Matt said, we estimate around 10,000 patients out there with Prader-Willi syndrome. The Soleno team did a great job of getting it off the ground and getting early adoption, but there's still a long way to go in terms of reaching and educating people about hyperphagia, about VYKAT XR and importantly, safe use. And so our goal is very simple.
We want to continue to drive new patient starts. We want to help folks achieve therapeutic benefit. And part of that is managing through the titration process, monitoring for any adverse events and getting to efficacy and benefit. Each quarter, we expect to see more patients on treatment than the prior quarter. And as we shared at our most recent earnings call, the expectation is that we're going to see sequential quarter-over-quarter growth going forward. So we have a lot of optimism about the opportunity here. As Matt said, this is a devastating illness, and this is a medicine that offers real benefit, but we recognize that we have work to do in terms of turning that opportunity into reality.
Just a minute left, a quick question on CRENESSITY, which has had a very remarkable early launch curve. Any signs of it plateauing?
So like VYKAT XR, CRENESSITY is very early in its commercial ramp as well. During our most recent earnings call, we shared that approximately 15 -- we estimate about 15% of the classic CAH population has now been put on treatment. So it's very early days yet, but there's still a long way to go in terms of fully optimizing that market opportunity. So I would say you should expect growth going forward. .
Okay. And no indication it's slowing at this stage?
So we don't comment on a quarter in the quarter. But what I would say is that we continue to see very steady and predictable growth in terms of new patient adds. One of the great things about chronicity is because it's so well tolerated, it also has really strong persistency. So the numbers keep stacking up.
Excellent. I think that brings our discussion to an end. Matthew, Eric, Todd, thank you so much for joining. Looking forward to a lot more updates from Neurocrine. Thanks, everyone, for tuning in.
Thanks for having us.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — 12th Annual Cantor Fitzgerald Global Healthcare Conference
Neurocrine is now a multi‑product biotech with durable commercial cash flow, a deep pipeline and near‑term growth but identifiable Medicare pricing headwinds ahead.
📣 Key Message
- Business mix: Three commercial brands (INGREZZA, CRENESSITY, VYKAT XR) and ~20 pipeline programs vs ~3 a few years ago, shifting the company from one‑product risk to diversified growth.
- Pipeline focus: Two transformational Phase III programs highlighted—osavampator for major depression and direclidine for schizophrenia—with readouts in 2027–2028.
- Financial footing: Last quarter ~ $1B sales; full‑year midpoint guidance $2.85B (+13% YoY) with a ~4% price headwind factored in.
🎯 Strategic Highlights
- INGREZZA investment: Field sales expansion completed (onboarded end‑Q1, rolled out Q2) to drive diagnosis and new patient starts; underlying volume growth in mid‑ to upper‑teens.
- VMAT2 strategy: Aim to dominate VMAT2 class including a follow‑on molecule (NBI‑'890) being developed as a long‑acting injectable to reach noncompliant patients on LAI antipsychotics.
- Acquisition & safety work: May Soleno/ VYKAT XR deal; company committed to KOL‑designed studies to address cardiovascular risk stratification and safe titration in Prader‑Willi syndrome.
🔭 New Information
- Medicare timing: Management expects phased statutory rebate increases for Medicare (roughly 2%→5%→8% over the next years) and says formulary coverage held near current levels so far.
- IRA negotiation: Company retains a small biotech exemption that pushes its formal Inflation Reduction Act negotiation to 2029, where a negotiated discount of ~25%–34% versus non‑FAMP (non‑Federal Average Manufacturer Price) is possible.
- Commercial traction: CRENESSITY early roll‑out (~15% of classic CAH estimated treated); VYKAT XR is early but management expects sequential quarter growth.
❓ Analyst Q&A
- Salesforce impact: Management expects salesforce expansion to materially aid new patient starts but full benefits typically take a few quarters to realize; they expect clearer lift by year‑end.
- Pricing/access risk: Analysts pressed on 2027–2029 pricing dynamics; management acknowledged a likely revenue dip around 2029 from negotiated Medicare pricing but framed it as manageable (not a generic‑type collapse) and offset partly by catastrophic rebate removal.
- Safety follow‑up: On VYKAT XR, commitment to design post‑marketing/clinical studies with KOLs to define cardiovascular monitoring and patient selection to broaden safe use.
⚡ Bottom Line
- Investor takeaway: Neurocrine has graduated to a diversified commercial biotech with strong near‑term growth drivers and a high‑value late‑stage psychiatry pipeline that could be transformational; near‑term Medicare pricing under the Inflation Reduction Act presents a measurable but manageable headwind around 2029 that investors should model alongside pipeline upside.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Wells Fargo 21st Annual Healthcare Conference
1. Question Answer
So awesome. Thank you very much for the post-lunch session, and we made it such that we have a very exciting company with us to make sure you stay awake during the post-lunch session here. We have Neurocrine management with us. We have Matt Abernethy, the CFO of the company; Eric Benevich, the Chief Commercial Officer of the company; and Todd Tushla, the Head of IR at the company. Thank you very much Team Neurocrine, for joining us today.
Well, happy to be here and happy to be called an exciting company. I think that we are an exciting company, and we were talking beforehand. We're treated a little bit like a value company at the moment, but we are a growth company. We have a lot of great things going on right now and really do feel quite fortunate to be in the spot where we have multiple products. We had $1 billion in revenue this past quarter and a lot of data readouts coming over the next 12 to 24 months, as you know, and as CFO, financial flexibility to continue to invest into the future.
So I do feel quite fortunate to have INGREZZA, which this man launched 9 years ago, $2.85 billion expected at the midpoint of the range, growing 13% year-over-year, and that's 9 years into launch. IP protection that takes us out to 2038. So that's really the foundation of what's allowed us to invest and build the company to where we're at today. We have CRENESSITY that was approved in December of 2024. That was for congenital adrenal hyperplasia, the first-ever medicine that's been approved for patients in over 70 years, and we've been able to help 15% of patients at this point in the launch. And so a run rate of $750 million coming out of last quarter with tremendous growth opportunity ahead.
And then last, on the commercial product side, we have VYKAT XR, which came to us from the Soleno acquisition. That is going well, helping patients who are very sick. It's a very difficult disease. And Soleno had done a great job helping many patients with PWS. We take it into our hands now, and we're going through the integration and feel like there's many more patients that have PWS that are going to benefit from a medicine like VYKAT XR. We had $94 million in sales this past quarter. And really, the aim right now is to get through the integration and to be able to put some magic touches on it that Eric and team will be able to deploy and then grow sequentially exiting the year.
On the pipeline front, we have major data catalysts coming over the next 12 to 24 months. The 2 that I'd highlight in particular, the first one is osavampator, that's for major depression. That is an AMPA potentiator. So in the ketamine pathway. So it's a validated mechanism. We had excellent Phase II data. We're running the trial to ensure that we limit the placebo effect, and we're looking forward to having data from our 3 trials in 2027.
The second major program in Phase III is direclidine, and that is our muscarinic agonist, and that is being studied in schizophrenia. That has a differentiated product profile that I think will lend itself to a safe, tolerable, ease-of-use delivery, and that we'll have data in 2027 and 2028. So Mohit, when you think about the transformation we've gone through just the last several years, now $1 billion per quarter. We have meaningful data catalysts coming up and tremendous financial flexibility, 0 debt, $0.5 billion in cash and growing coming off of the Soleno acquisition. We have a lot to look forward to as a company. So I appreciate Wells Fargo being here. I also remember, I didn't say the forward-looking statements. We will be making forward-looking statements. So check out our SEC filings.
So Mohit, with that, I'll hand it back to you. A lot of great things going on.
Awesome. So like the clear sign is like out of 12 questions, I only had 3 of them for INGREZZA. So 9 for everything else. So that's the sign of things. But I have to start with INGREZZA. So I think there has always been this patient -- volume price dynamic with INGREZZA. And you seem to have like kind of turned a leaf there by all the investments that you have done in sales team there. Talk a little bit about how sensitive this market is to commercialization and marketing aspect of things. And then also, like, I mean, how much growth is left in this market because you seem to be growing really rapidly still. And not just you, you and competitor both.
Yes. I guess I'll take the second question first. I think the headline is that there's a lot of growth potential left in the VMAT2 category in tardive dyskinesia. If you think about INGREZZA, it's an unusual brand. It's an unusual medicine in the sense that it's been on the market now for about 9.5 years and still growing at a double-digit clip. And I think that, that is both a testament to the product profile of INGREZZA, very effective, very safe and well tolerated. And certainly, we've seen strong receptivity and adoption over the years. But also, I think it's due to the fact that the tardive dyskinesia category was so underdeveloped, so to speak, at the time that we launched in 2017. So we currently estimate over 800,000 people in the U.S. living with tardive dyskinesia and yet only about 10% of people are currently being treated with either of the 2 VMAT2 inhibitors. So there's still a lot of room for organic growth. And as Matt said, we saw very strong and continued strong growth even in year 9 of this launch. Q2 of this year, we posted record number of new patient starts for INGREZZA, which is once again unusual for a product 9 years in and a record number of total prescriptions. And so it's a testament to the medicine, but it's also a testament to the fact that this is a market that still has a lot of growth potential in terms of getting people diagnosed and treated. And we expect that momentum to carry us forward into '27 and beyond.
The other part of your question was really related to how promotionally sensitive is this. And what we found is that especially in a category that's so underdeveloped and underdiagnosed, very promotionally sensitive. And what we've done over the years is to make what we think are smart investments where we think it makes sense. So for example, we recently, and recently is about 1.5 quarters ago, completed a sales force expansion. And the basis for this sales force expansion, the rationale was really sort of twofold. One was we continue to see the base of VMAT2 writers grow. And at the time that we announced our intention to expand our sales force, which would have been late last year, we shared that the size of the VMAT2 prescriber universe had grown by 30% in just the last 2 years. And so in some ways, as we've expanded our team over time, it's been to keep up with the growth of the market and to make sure that we can call on, especially in psychiatry and long-term care, those providers that are caring for these patients that either have already been diagnosed or exhibiting the symptoms of TD and you haven't yet gotten a formal diagnosis. That's another example of how promotionally sensitive this category is, is the fact that we have, for the last, I want to say, 4 years or so, been running branded DTC on TV. Some of you may have seen our ads running, but essentially reaching out to people that are on antipsychotics that may or may not have been given a diagnosis to explain their abnormal movements, encouraging them to speak to their doctor and ask for INGREZZA specifically.
And every time that we've looked at the ROI of our investment in DTC, it's come out very positive. So we've continued to invest there. So I think that the sales force expansion, the continued investment in DTC are a testament to the growth potential and the opportunity that lays ahead. So 9 years in, we've made great progress, but we've got a long way to go still in terms of fully capturing this market opportunity.
Just think 13% year-over-year growth is what we anticipate. That is inclusive of 4% price headwind in 2026. So this year, 9 years in, all the effort of the team still growing 17% underlying volumes. It's an incredible year for the team and also the many patients that is being benefited from that. And we made an investment last year in access to expand our access and coverage to 70%. And I think the fruits of that labor or investment in rebating is paying off. And so as we think about the future in 2027, in particular, in 2028, ensuring that we maintain that access is a critical aspect to our strategy. And so I think one of the most common questions we're getting coming out of the quarter is, okay, you guys are having a great 2026. What about...
'27. That was my next question.
Yes. What about 2027? So there are 2 pricing headwinds. The first one is statutory. Because we had the small biotech exemption, we were not paying the full 20% catastrophic coverage rebate for Medicare Part D patients. That is moving from a 2% rebate to a 5% rebate, and that's off of the WAC. So that's going to be a known headwind.
The second aspect is as we've been negotiating with plans to preserve our access because our competitor has an MFP where they'll be required to be covered on formulary. We have had to give some modest rebates to be able to maintain that access. But we expect to more than offset any of the price headwinds with the volume that we're going to be able to generate next year in 2027. So we do anticipate being a strong grower next year in 2027, and we'll give more specific color as we get later in this year or early next year.
So the 3% extra impact, that is on WAC. So -- but on net price, it could be more than 3%. Is that fair?
Yes. It could be more than the 3% impact, but you also only have a segment of about 65% or so of patients are actually Med D patients. So it's not on the whole base. But you're right, in terms of Med D, the 3% is closer to 4.5% type of an impact since it is on WAC.
And then you divide there and you multiply by 65% so that [indiscernible].
Yes. Probably similar ZIP code.
Got it. Very, very helpful. So do you see -- so like AUSTEDO -- because we have seen this with some of these players when they cut the WAC price, they see some kind of net benefit and maybe volume growth as well because there are some plans who benefit from the lower list price. Do you see any such thing with AUSTEDO having a lower WAC price versus you having a higher? Is there anything need to...
Yes. I'll make a more specific comment and then maybe a general comment. The general comment is, I think the jury is out in terms of whether MFP negotiated products actually see any increase in access as a result. I think it depends on the brand in terms of what their pre-MFP formulary coverage looked like and to the extent that, that brand or that category was managed by the plans. In this case, so the VMAT2 category, we have 2 medications, INGREZZA and reformulated tetrabenazine. Our competitor has historically had been fairly aggressive in terms of their contracting activity. And as a result, has had formulary access greater than 90% of Medicare lives in most years.
So going into 2027, I think there probably will be an increase in coverage to get up to 100%, but it's sort of marginal. Whereas we are at around 70% formulary coverage this year and our expectation for next year is it will be similar to what it is now. But regardless of what percentage of lives are covered on formulary, it doesn't take away the fact that these are specialty medicines that require prior authorization and any claims that are approved have to meet the criteria for the plan. So we'll see how things play out in terms of increased access. But ultimately, our goal is to make sure that we have parity or near parity coverage. And when we have parity coverage, we find that we do quite well based on the merits of the product profile.
Got it.
We have a great product in a great market, but it's still promotionally sensitive as we were talking about before. So our focus is to make sure that all the sand is out of the gears as much as possible and allowing choice for the prescriber, choice for the patients. And I think over the last 18 months, we feel like we're winning and gaining more share and obviously contributing to the overall top line of Neurocrine.
Awesome. Thank you for that. So maybe moving to the second product, CRENESSITY. So you've done really well in -- like I think you are probably exceeding the peak sales estimate 3 years ago, what they were for this product probably already second time in a row. So...
I haven't thought about that. But I think you're right, when we received approval, we had been saying blockbuster. But I think the Street was $500 million to $700 million. And our run rate right now is, like I said earlier, $750 million. So, yes.
Right. And it happened with INGREZZA as well. I mean, I remember the time the peak sales was $500 million at some point.
Yes. It feels like after the last couple of quarters of sales that the investment community is starting to believe that this is indeed a blockbuster.
Right. And then there's a company which also acquired another company. So they're talking good numbers as well, right? So we'll get to that. So I think like for last few quarters, like every quarter, you would post a good quarter for CRENESSITY, but people would still worry about -- because your comments were a little bit guarded at that point that we don't know what the steady-state new patient add is. So like we were always thinking that there was probably a bolus, it will go away. This quarter, you sounded a little bit more comfortable around the patient add number. So talk a little bit about like what gives you confidence that you are getting to more of a steady-state patient adds here? And what are you seeing in the marketplace that gives you comfort that you could continue to grow here?
Yes. I'll start off by saying that we've been really pleased and maybe delighted with the launch of CRENESSITY. And as you noted, externally, I think the expectations were more modest in terms of what the potential was for this medication. But we've always believed it can be a blockbuster, and we said that upfront at the beginning of the launch. And now we're on a trajectory to deliver on that.
There's 3 things that have been really favorable with this launch. One is the rate of adoption. And as we saw, there was sort of a bolus of patients that got on treatment in the first couple of quarters. So we saw that in last spring with CRENESSITY. But then ever since then, the rate of new patient adds has been very steady and consistent from week to month-to-month and now quarter-to-quarter. So we see this as a very -- I don't want to say predictable, but reliable trend in terms of new patient starts.
The other thing that's been really favorable has been the persistency. And it's one thing to see what the persistency looks like in clinical trials. It's another thing in the real world. In clinical trials, what we saw in the open-label extension was -- well, first of all, in the double-blind studies, over 95% of patients completed enrolled over into the open-label study. And even at a year, it was about 90% that were still on treatment. And then we just recently rolled out 2-year data. And once again, about 90% of those people were still on drug at the end of the second year. The real-world persistency isn't quite as high as what we saw in the clinical trials, but not that far off. And so we feel really good. This is an outlier to the upside with CRENESSITY. So that's been favorable.
And then the third thing, which I think is an important contributor here is the reimbursement. So this is a rare disease drug. It's nonformulary on most plans. It's mostly a commercial and Medicaid population. But we haven't had any real challenges in terms of getting claims approved. In fact, not only have we had a really high claims approval rate, but it's been faster than what we had expected. And as a result, there's been a lower-than-expected utilization of our free trial program. So ultimately, we're seeing steady adoption. The claims are getting approved and they're getting approved pretty quickly. And then once patients get on treatment, they're able to see their androgens come down and/or start to taper down their glucocorticoids, and we're seeing really strong persistency as a result. And so there's still a lot of headroom in this particular therapeutic area.
During the last earnings call, we disclosed that about 15% of the prevalent population was now on treatment. But that means the majority of people are yet untreated. And so we feel good about the progress we've made so far, but we recognize that there's a lot of work to be done to continue to build our CRENESSITY franchise.
Well, I'll tell you, I'm not surprised that Eric and team could deliver on this. They've done a great job. And I think when you take a step back and you say, why is this successful and why is it going to continue to be successful, it's a market that the only option for these patients was to take high-dose steroids for 70 years. So there is significant need.
The second piece, as Eric said, you can see a dramatic reduction in androgens right after you start taking therapy within the first month. So you can see the efficacy, you can see the stabilization.
And then third is the safety aspect. This is primarily a medicine that's prescribed or the majority right now, a little over 50% are pediatrics. And safety is absolutely critical to getting them to try the medicine and then ultimately to stay on the medicine. So those attributes lend itself for us to believe we're going to continue to chug away and drive meaningful revenue growth over the next several years.
And you had asked about whether we were a little bit more guarded early on. I think it helps to have more data, right? And certainly, like we saw with INGREZZA in TD, this is what I call a learning launch. We're building a new category from scratch. And you have certain assumptions that you have going into a launch like this. Many of the assumptions we were on target, and we made good choices, but you learn as you go. And the more runway we have, the more confidence we have in terms of the direction that things are going to continue to go with this franchise. So I feel very bullish about it.
Underpromising and overdelivering makes product life easier.
I'm just trying to manage upwards.
That takes a lot of work.
For sure. So in terms of paint the picture of the market for me a little bit, in terms of the sales force and all, this is not an undiagnosed patient population for the most part as well? Or is it? Or is there a promotional effort that like, let's say, 6 months down the line, you would realize that you can probably -- you need more resources or something like that? Is there anything like that here?
Yes. I'll caveat it by saying we just completed a small sales force expansion. Small, meaning you can count them on 2 hands, kind of number of FTEs. But ultimately, I wouldn't characterize it as an undiagnosed condition or an underdiagnosed condition. I would characterize it as an undercoded or miscoded population. The reason I say that is classic CAH is the more severe form versus non-classic CAH. And for every classic patient, there's 4 or 5 nonclassic patients. Unfortunately, there is no modifier to the ICD-10 code. So there is a general code for CAH. And if we just focused our patient finding efforts on those practices that have CAH, one or more of those patients in their practice, most of the time, we'd be encountering non-classic patients.
And so as Matt said, we try and be smart and efficient in terms of where we focus our efforts. So in addition to having a small sales team, and when I say small, it's only about 50 or so people that are out there calling on these practices in endocrinology. We've put effort behind patient finding using different data sets. So claims data, EMR data, even lab data to help us find people that look like individuals that are already on treatment. So that's been an important part of our launch success. And that patient finding capability gets better over time, the more data that we sort of feed into it.
So ultimately, we feel like this is a category that has a lot of upside potential to it. But it's still early days yet. If this was a child, I'd say it's like a toddler, right? We're 1.5 years into this launch. We're learning a lot as we go. I don't expect that we're going to have to make any -- we just completed a sales force expansion. I don't see that in the cards anytime soon. But what I do see is continued investment in our patient finding capability and making us more efficient over time.
The last thing I'll say is that there's really 3 segments to our business right now or 3 focus areas on the HCP side. So there's a small number of centers of excellence. There's less than 20 in the U.S. These are typically -- these are clinics that are typically affiliated with teaching hospitals, some of which are accredited by the CARES Foundation, which is the patient advocacy group in CAH.
Secondly, and importantly -- so we think that the centers of excellence account for maybe 15% of the patient potential. Another important segment for us is pediatric endocrinologists, and there's about 1,100 of them in the U.S. And typically, they have more experience managing these patients with classic CAH. They're more likely to have patients in their practice. So they're a really important segment for us. Pediatric population, we estimate at about 1/3 of the overall classic CAH population, but we do expect it's going to account for a majority of our business, and it already is accounting for more than half.
And then the third segment is the largest numerically, which is the adult outpatient endocrinologists. That's where things get a little thin in terms of patient count. So 2/3 of the patients are adults. But if they see an endocrinologist, that endocrinologist might only have 1 or 2 patients, if any, right? So ultimately, for us to be successful in the long run, we have to be able to reach, educate and activate patients that are in the community, some of whom don't even have an endocrinologist. So we'll continue to evolve over time in terms of our approach. But so far, it's been very heartening to see the effect that CRENESSITY is having on these patients. And certainly, I think our business results speak volumes.
Got it. Very, very helpful. One last question on CRENESSITY. So how do you think about the competition here? Like you talked about safety here. The competition is -- like the competitor is sitting upstream of CRENESSITY here a little bit. So you have first-mover advantage. They are coming with their drug. I mean how do you think about the competitive landscape 3, 4 years down the line?
Yes, I'll chime in and then maybe you want to add. I'll start off by saying I really like our position, right? We have a substantial head start years, in fact. And I mentioned earlier that we, just this spring and summer, rolled out very impressive 2-year long-term outcomes data. And these data, I think, were very well received in the physician community because it's delivering on the promise of really what they want to see for a treatment for these classic CAH patients. So if you think about the old treatment paradigm of using supraphysiologic glucocorticoids to suppress the overproduction of ACTH and then downstream androgens, you ended up being able to control androgen excess, but at the expense of exposure to high-dose steroids, which we understand has a lot of negative effects on the brain and the heart and the bones.
Now you bring in CRENESSITY, which is a CRF1 antagonist and really what it's doing is blocking the overproduction of ACTH and therefore, the downstream overproduction of 17-OHP and [indiscernible] and other precursors. So ultimately, what CRENESSITY does is to restore balance. It's allowing the dysregulation of that HPA axis to get reregulated, reduce the amount of ACTH and then therefore, the overproduction of the androgens. And as a result, now we're seeing patients being able to bring down their high-dose steroids, right? So you think about the mechanism of CRENESSITY, it's an upstream mechanism versus you're referring to atumelnant, which is an investigational medicine that doesn't reduce the amount of ACTH, it blocks it at the adrenal gland. So it's unknown, I think, what ultimately the clinical profile is going to look like for that investigational medicine. It's very early days yet. There's not a lot of patients that have been treated with it. And certainly, we don't know what the consequences might be of sustained elevated and uncontrolled overproduction of ACTH because that medicine doesn't reduce ACTH, it simply blocks it at the adrenal.
So I think data will tell the story. And certainly, we feel very good about the long-term safety data that we've generated, both in adults and in pediatric patients and having a several year head start ability to penetrate the patient population to get people on effective treatment. We know from other categories that if patients are being well controlled on their current regimen, if they're tolerating it, it's really hard to move them off and displace them. So like I said at the beginning, I feel really good about where we are, but we'll continue to execute on our plan, and we'll see how things shake out in terms of data over time.
Yes. I would just say people should be cautious in trying to compare small numbers of patients, different levels of baseline. There's nothing that we've seen in their data that would make us feel like CRENESSITY would be displaced.
Got it. Moving to VYKAT. Thank you for all the details on CRENESSITY. So there has been -- so this deal has been a little bit controversial in terms of people are still trying to understand what is the peak sales, how it could look like and there are questions around persistency and all that. Can you tell us like what people are missing, which you saw in this asset and you think that this asset could be a great deal?
Yes. From a strategic perspective, it fits in quite nicely with the rare endocrine franchise. It also adds a durable growth asset, and it allows us scale, and it's already a profitable product even at a $400 million run rate. So for us, when we did the acquisition, we were eyes wide open in terms of some of the challenges that may come with it and some of the things that we could do to overall enhance the offering of VYKAT XR. And so a lot of what we're working on now or identifying or finding is very consistent with what we would have thought going through with the acquisition. We knew the most important aspect is, is there going to be steady new patients coming on to therapy? Is there a benefit? And the good thing is the last 2 quarters, there have been steady new patients coming on to therapy, and this is a devastating disease.
The second piece is you could see in the data -- as we looked at discontinuation rates, you could see in the data from those who started early in launch in about month 6 to 9 after month 9, you had about a 20% to 25% discontinuation rate. And so that's something that we have indicated to the market that, that should be the base level expectation on discontinuation. So for us, as we think about executing, executing and helping identify the right patients, executing and helping ensure there's appropriate monitoring through the titration process to ensure that as many patients with PWS who are appropriate to get treated ultimately get treated.
So we have had a couple of straight quarters of flattening of sales. We had $94 million this past quarter. We do know that we're working through the discontinuation from the bolus of patients. So there's a bit of a tail there. And once we're through that tail, we feel very confident that the commercial initiatives that we have underway are going to lead to sequential growth the rest of this year. So my comment is let focus on us executing, and our numbers are ultimately going to speak for themselves in terms of the deal and the value there. And we see this as a tremendous need for these patients fit strategically for Neurocrine, and we do have a lot of enthusiasm within this product group.
Thank you very much. Todd, what are we going to learn at the event you are hosting at the end of the year?
Yes. Sure. Thanks for the plug there. So in early December, we will be hosting an R&D day that will focus on our neurology and immunology strategies. Neurology, I think, is relatively well understood, some of the pipeline assets we have, less so on the immunology front. So we're looking forward to sharing some of that information with the investment community then.
Got it. So Matt, the question for you is, based on all that, do you think you have enough pipeline to work through? Or do you think there is still more -- like you could deploy more cash?
Well, first of all, I feel fortunate, like I said at the beginning, that we have 3 commercial products that are generating significant cash flow. And those cash flows allow us to reinvest back into the pipeline at a rate of 30% to 35%. That's where we believe that is the right level of reinvestment to lead to sort of a flywheel of future new products. We've been fortunate to have quality pipeline, and we have a lot that investors haven't seen, which we'll highlight at R&D Day. And so we do have a lot to invest in internally. So that is our second priority behind commercial and driving revenue growth.
And then third, we do have a clean balance sheet. We do have capacity to do a business development transaction. But sitting here right now, we've got a lot in our hands right now to execute, help a lot of patients get to some Phase III trial data. So we're always looking. But right now, very much focused on executing what we have.
On that high note, thank you very much for joining us and all the best.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Wells Fargo 21st Annual Healthcare Conference
Neurocrine presented strong commercial momentum—INGREZZA and CRENESSITY driving cash flow—plus VYKAT XR integration and mid‑late decade neurology data catalysts.
📊 Key Message
- Message: Company reported a ~$1B quarter, with INGREZZA still growing (~13% YoY) and a CRENESSITY run rate near $750M; VYKAT XR contributed ~$94M this quarter. Management emphasizes cash-generation (0 debt, ~$0.5B cash) and reinvesting ~30–35% of cash flow to fund late‑stage neurology and immunology programs with data readouts in 2027–2028.
🎯 Strategic Highlights
- Highlights: INGREZZA: targeted sales force expansion and continued direct‑to‑consumer advertising to drive diagnosis and volume. CRENESSITY: rapid, steady new‑patient starts, high real‑world persistency and favorable reimbursement, large pediatric mix. VYKAT XR: strategic fit from Soleno acquisition; focus on integration, patient identification and reducing early discontinuations.
🔭 New Information
- New: Specifics disclosed include CRENESSITY ~15% penetration of the prevalent population, INGREZZA access expanded to ~70% of lives, VYKAT XR sales $94M, and the Medicare Part D catastrophic rebate change (small‑biotech relief declining from 2% to 5% off WAC) creating a modest WAC headwind that management expects to offset with volume in 2027.
❓ Analyst Q&A
- Topics: INGREZZA: promotionally sensitive market, pricing/rebate pressure and formulary dynamics versus competitor MFPs. CRENESSITY: sustainability of new‑patient adds, strong persistency, and patient‑finding strategies (claims/EMR/lab data). VYKAT XR: questions on early discontinuation (management cites ~20–25% after initial bolus) and expected sequential growth after integration and enhanced monitoring.
⚡ Bottom Line
- Bottom Line: Neurocrine is a cash‑generating growth company with two commercially strong franchises and an acquired rare‑disease asset that requires active integration. Near‑term upside is driven by CRENESSITY adoption and INGREZZA volume; VYKAT XR and late‑stage neurology data are key execution risks/opportunities. Main shareholder risks are pricing/rebate shifts, formulary access, and commercial execution.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Q2 2026 Earnings Call
1. Management Discussion
Hello, and welcome, everyone joining today's Neurocrine Biosciences Reports Q2 2026 Earnings Call. [Operator Instructions] Please note, this call is being recorded, and we are standing by if you should need any assistance.
It is now my pleasure to turn the meeting over to Todd Tushla, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.
Happy Thursday, everyone. Welcome to Neurocrine Biosciences Second Quarter 2026 Earnings Call. With me today on the call are Kyle Gano, Chief Executive Officer; Matt Abernethy, Chief Financial Officer; Eric Benevich, Chief Commercial Officer; Sanjay Keswani, Chief Medical Officer; and in his well-deserved new role as Chief Business Officer, Samir Siddhanti. .
During today's call, we will be making forward-looking statements. These statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties, and our actual results may differ materially. I encourage you to review the risk factors discussed in our latest SEC filings. In addition, some of the information discussed today includes non-GAAP financial measures that have not been calculated in accordance with U.S. GAAP. Reconciliations of these non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures are presented in the tables at the end of our earnings release issued earlier today, which has been posted on the Investor Relations page of Neurocrine's website.
After prepared remarks, we'll jump into Q&A. Now I'll hand the call off to Kyle.
Thanks, Todd. Good afternoon, everyone. Neurocrine's second quarter performance demonstrates the power of a diversified growth strategy built to compound over time. Our commercial portfolio of first-in-class medicines, INGREZZA, CRENESSITY and VYKAT XR delivered another record quarter with net product sales exceeding $950 million, enabling more patients to benefit from our innovative medicines. .
This durable commercial performance provides the financial strength to continue investing in innovation, advance our industry-leading pipeline and pursue strategic opportunities that further strengthen Neurocrine for long-term growth. Our strategy remains clear, execute our commercial portfolio to bring our medicines to patients, advance our innovation engine and deploy capital with discipline. This quarter demonstrated meaningful progress across all 3 of these priorities.
The commercial business continues to generate durable growth. The pipeline is advancing at one of the industry's strongest mid- to late-stage portfolios and disciplined capital deployment was demonstrated through the successful acquisition and integration of VYKAT XR. Together, these efforts further strengthen our position in rare disease while building on our leadership in endocrinology. More importantly, these results reflected the continued evolution of Neurocrine. Just a few years ago, we were largely viewed as a single product company.
Today, we have multiple commercial growth drivers and expanding pipeline across all phases of development and the financial strength to invest through innovation cycles. Together, these strengths position us to create long-term value for patients, physicians, employees and shareholders alike. Looking ahead, we remain on track to deliver multiple important clinical milestones in 2027, including Phase III data readouts for osavampator in major depressive disorder and direclidine in schizophrenia.
Together with the continued integration of VYKAT XR, these mile zones represent the NIC chapter in Neurocrine's growth and reinforce our confidence in the opportunity ahead. Before I turn the call to Matt, I'd like to recognize Samir Siddhanti on his recent promotion to Chief Business Officer. Since joining Neurocrine in 2017, Samir has played an integral role in shaping our corporate strategy and business development efforts. As a member of our executive leadership team, he will help guide the next phase of Neurocrine's growth and evolution. Samir, congratulations. We are excited for what's ahead.
With that, I'll turn the call over to Matt.
Good afternoon, everyone. For the second quarter, we delivered over $950 million of total revenue, representing nearly 40% year-over-year growth. This reflects full quarter contributions from INGREZZA and CRENESSITY, along with a partial quarter contribution from VYKAT XR following the close of the Simeno acquisition. This revenue performance demonstrates accelerating top line growth, delivering a financial profile with non-GAAP EPS of $2.85 per share.
Starting with INGREZZA. Second quarter net sales were $716 million, up 15% year-over-year, driven by another quarter of record new patient additions and sustained underlying demand. Given this performance, we are raising full year INGREZZA guidance from $2.7 billion to $2.8 billion to a new range of $2.825 billion to $2.875 billion. At the midpoint, this represents approximately 13% year-over-year growth. CRENESSITY's second quarter net sales were $184 million, reflecting continued strong launch execution consistent new patient starts and expanding prescriber adoption. Approximately 15% of the estimated diagnosed patient population has now been prescribed CRENESSITY reinforcing our confidence in the significant runway for growth.
Turning to VYKAT XR. Second quarter pro forma net sales were $94 million, with $54 million recognized by Neurocrine from May 18, the closing date of the Solano acquisition. Integration has progressed well and expect to drive sequential quarterly growth exiting 2026. New patient demand remained fairly consistent with the first quarter, while discontinuation rates tracked in line with our expectations following the initial launch bolus in 2025.
We have more work to do in developing this market and remain optimistic and the opportunity to help many more patients with PWS over the years ahead. Pro forma total revenues were $998 million for the second quarter 2026 when including full quarter VYKAT XR sales. This performance underscores the strength and increasing scale of our commercial portfolio across 3 highly differentiated products.
Turning to our financials. With the Soleno acquisition now complete, I'd like to briefly discuss the financial impact of the transaction, including the purchase accounting and the GAAP to non-GAAP adjustments reflected in our earnings release. We acquired Soleno for approximately $2.9 billion and financed the transaction with cash on hand. We ended the second quarter with approximately $500 million in cash and no debt.
Strategically and financially, this is a highly attractive acquisition. VYKAT XR adds another differentiated durable growth product to our portfolio and is immediately accretive to non-GAAP earnings. Accordingly, we updated operating expense guidance to include the Soleno operating expenses, transaction and integration costs and the expected purchase accounting intangible and inventory fair value amortization impacts for the remainder of 2026. We expect approximately $150 million of acquisition-related costs of which $130 million was recognized in the second quarter.
Our GAAP second quarter results also include noncash purchase accounting amortization of acquired intangible assets and inventory fair value step-up of approximately $20 million. Overall, our commercial portfolio continues to perform exceptionally well, generating close to $1 billion in pro forma quarterly sales providing substantial financial flexibility to invest consistent with our capital allocation priorities to drive revenue growth, advance our expanding pipeline and pursue additional strategic business development opportunities.
With growing sales and improving financial profile and meaningful data catalysts ahead, we feel quite fortunate to find ourselves in a position to continue to build a leading global biotech company.
With that, I will now hand the call over to Eric Benevich, our Chief Commercial Officer. Eric?
Thanks, Matt. Just 5 years ago, Neurocrine was a single product commercial stage company celebrating INGREZZA achieving blockbuster status, surpassing $1 billion in annual sales. Today, our commercial portfolio includes 3 first-in-class medicines with combined quarterly sales approaching $1 billion and annualizing to approximately $4 billion. This transformation reflects the successful execution of our long-term growth strategy.
So starting with INGREZZA, second quarter performance was outstanding with record sales of $716 million, driven by another quarter of all-time highs in both new patient starts and total prescriptions. Based on our increased full year guidance, we expect to help more patients than ever before who are living with tardive dyskinesia or [indiscernible] associated with Huntington's disease.
CRENESSITY also delivered another excellent sales quarter generating $184 million. The launch continues to follow a very consistent pattern, steady pace of new patient starts, high persistence and compliance and favorable reimbursement. Adoption remains balanced across both adults and pediatric patients, male and female patients and across the business segments of CAH Centers of Excellence, pediatric endocrinologists and community adult endocrinologists.
Importantly, our prescriber base has nearly tripled compared to 1 year ago, providing a strong foundation for continued growth. Turning to VYKAT XR. While still very early in the integration of this franchise into our commercial platform, we were encouraged by second quarter trends. New patient starts remain steady on a sequential basis, the prescriber base continued to expand and discontinuations tracked in line with expectations following the initial bolus of patients who began therapy last year.
As with any acquisition, It will take a few quarters to get fully integrated, and we're excited to introduce Neurocrine's commercial, medical and patient support capabilities to the VYKAT team and the PWS community. We remain confident in driving sequential growth as we exit 2026 and continue our conviction that VYKAT XR has the potential to become the third blockbuster in our portfolio.
Before I wrap, I'd like to extend a special thank you to our commercial and medical teams in neuropsychiatry and rare endocrinology, our internal cross-functional colleagues and the VYKAT XR team from Soleno. Q2 was a quarter of significant transformative change for Neurocrine, where we both expanded our existing commercial footprint to better meet the needs of health care providers and patients, while we also began the integration of VYKAT XR into our company. We executed all these significant structural changes without missing a beat in terms of our mission to help more patients. My hat is literally off to our teams for pulling off such a tremendous transformation while simultaneously delivering such a strong quarter.
Now I'll turn the call over to our Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Sanjay Keswani.
Thanks, Eric, and good afternoon, everyone. I'll begin today with highlights from [indiscernible] 2026, where we presented important new data for both CRENESSITY and VYKAT XR. Starting with CRENESSITY, we presented 2-year data from the ongoing catalyst open-label studies in pediatric and adult patients with classic centodrenal hyperplasia.
These results demonstrated meaningful and durable improvements across multiple aspects of health, including cardiometabolic outcomes, bone health, quality of life and pediatric growth while continuing to reinforce CRENESSITY's favorable long-term safety profile. For VYKAT XR, we presented 3-year HQ-CT and Prader-Willi syndrome profile data comparing treated patients with a natural history cohort.
These analyses demonstrated significant and sustained reductions in hyperphagia across all evaluated time points, supporting the durability of treatment benefit. Additional data also showed meaningful improvements when patients who had previously discontinued therapy restarted treatment, underscoring the importance of continued treatment in maintaining long-term outcomes.
Collectively, these data strengthen the growing body of evidence supporting both CRENESSITY and VYKAT XR and highlight the meaningful impact these medicines are having for patients and the endocrinology community. Turning to the pipeline. We continue to make steady progress. Notably, we remain on track to report Phase III top line data for sovampator in major depressive disorder in the second half of 2027. We also remain on track to report the first Phase III readout for [indiscernible] in schizophrenia in the second half of 2027 and for the second Phase III study in 2028.
Looking ahead, we look forward to hosting our neurology and immunology webinar in early December where we will provide an update on our strategy and highlight key programs across both therapeutic areas.
With that, I'll hand the call back to Todd.
Excellent. Clay, let's jump into Q&A.
[Operator Instructions] We will take our first question from Paul Mattis with Stifel.
2. Question Answer
Congrats on the execution on the great quarter. As it relates to INGREZZA, I was wondering at this point in the year, how much visibility do you have on pricing dynamics next year and any feedback you're getting or any insight you're getting into access dynamics with the [indiscernible] MFP being enacted?
Paul, this is Kyle. Thanks for the question. Maybe just to start where we are with 2026, great access this year with about 70% of all Medicare lives covered under the contracting that we executed last year, and we expect that pricing to remain relatively consistent year-to-year as we think about the second half of 2026.
In terms of 2027, obviously, our discussions with payers are ongoing now, and we should get a read on that later this year. But I think where we are right now is we do see a process and the path moving forward is not just us but others. -- that there'll be a place for MFP adjacent products for Medicare beneficiaries. And if you couple that with the fact that we're the market leader in the CMD 2 category, there's going to be ample opportunity for us to have the same access that we have here moving forward, strong access through '27 and '28.
So right now, it's all leveraging what we can with our team I would be remiss by not calling out that this market overall continues to grow double-digit year-to-year. So there's a lot of room left in this market, and we'll continue to focus there.
Kyle, any thought on how much additional cost maintaining this access might be next year or beyond?
No, I think it's too early to make a call on that, Paul. We'll have more to comment on that later in the year. Right now, it's been a great first half, and we'll continue to build on the momentum that we've seen. .
We'll take our next question from Phil Nadeau with TD Cowen.
Ours is on CRENESSITY really strong quarter with revenue up 20% quarter-quarter. It sounds from the prepared remarks, like everything was steady as you go. So steady patient adds, good reimbursement no bolus. I'm curious whether that interpretation is correct. Were there any onetime issues in Q2 that made it particularly strong that we shouldn't extrapolate into the back half of the year? Or is this pace of revenue growth reasonable for the next couple of quarters?
Yes. I think characterizing Q2 is really an extension of what we've seen earlier in the launch, a very steady and consistent pattern of new patient adds. We continue to see adoption across all the segments that we're focused on. The pediatric endocrinologists, the adult community endocrinologists and those centers of excellence. Really pleased with the fact that we estimate now that we've got about 15% of the addressable patient population on treatment. And certainly expect to see continued strong momentum as we move forward.
We'll move next to Tazeen Ahmad with Bank of America. .
Mine is on VYKAT. So this quarter's results of $94 million, it's roughly flat sequentially. I just took over this franchise. So -- can you maybe just talk to us about some of the things that you're doing in order to accelerate the launch trajectory now that the franchise is fully under your control and maybe just give some specifics about some of the things that you're doing now that you think could have an effect in a quarter or two?
Yes, Tazeen. So First of all, I'll say that the results that we saw in Q2 were aligned with our expectations coming out of diligence. Certainly, I think we're still learning a lot about the the hyperphagia market opportunity. But we've learned so far, it just reaffirms our convictions about the potential for this medicine to be a blockbuster. And we're still in the deep in the midst of our integration process here. But ultimately, I think the fundamentals are what matters, continuing to find patients to introduce VYKAT XR to the providers that care for them, primarily in endocrinology and then provide good education and guidance around how to select appropriate patients, how to help them through the titration process and to achieve good outcomes.
So I feel very good about the opportunity with VYKAT, everything that I've heard from the physicians that have experience with it. is very positive and certainly look forward to continuing to drive the launch of this product that's still very early in its commercial ramp.
And Tazeen, this is Kyle. I'm just reminded as we talk about VYKAT XR. This is our first earnings call post close, where we've had a discussion on this. So I do want to bring up the merits of the acquisition and the product itself. -- there's great strategic and financial fit here for us. VYKAT XR is a first-in-class, first-in-disease medicine for Prader-Willi syndrome. -- very much of the same category that we've seen for INGREZZA and CRENESSITY upon their launch. So we're really excited about the strategic fit there.
Obviously, we're able to expand on our endocrinology franchise moving forward. But as a product that comes out of the neurocrine umbrella earlier in its launch, not only do we get to treat many thousands of patients under Neurocrine, which is exciting. We also get to reap the financial reward of maximizing all the revenue growth that gets added to our top line as well as diversification. So there's a lot of financial fit there as well, not to mention that we believe the IP estate goes out to the mid-2040s. -- so it's durable as well.
So overall, we're really excited about what we have here. I think Eric called out some of the points that we're looking at now, and we're excited to bring this into the same blockbuster category that we see for CRENESSITY and INGREZZA moving forward.
The only thing I'd add is this was very much in line with our internal expectations. We knew what we were buying, and this has a tremendous amount of opportunity to help many more patients. So -- we have a ton of confidence in the team, the product and the opportunity to help many more patients with PWS. So we're encouraged as we think forward. .
We'll move next to Brian Skorney with Baird.
Congrats on a great quarter. Maybe I jump in with a question on VYKAT as well. I think during the slides, there's a lot of debate on sort of the differences between sort of new start boluses and sort of dropouts and as you're sort of getting your head around things right now. Maybe you can just kind of characterize what you're seeing out there in terms of like how much of initial bolus numbers are really kind of affecting the dropout rate that we see right now? And when do we -- do you think that there's an upwards equilibrium of new starts and dropout rates to think about in the coming quarters?
Yes. No, I appreciate the question. This is Kyle. I think what we've seen on a new patient start basis is a pretty steady flow of new patient starts over the past couple of quarters. So that's good. That's right along the lines of the expectation we had after completing diligence on the company.
In terms of discontinuations, obviously, with a bolus of patients at the launch. We do see some of those distinuations being pulled through as time has gone along, but we expect to see the ultimate rate settling into what we would see with other orphan medicines in the 25% to 30% range. So that's what we'll be looking at moving forward. But ultimately, our goal here is you'll see sequential growth as we exit 2026 and looking at that in future years. So we're right where we need to be right now. I think more importantly, I'm really excited to see our team bring its resources and the support to the Soleno team now under the Neurocrine brand. and take all of our learnings collectively and make this particular medicine be the best that can be moving forward.
We'll move next to Mohit Bansal with Wells Fargo.
Congrats on a great quarter. So I just wanted to understand your VYKAT commentary a little bit better for next few quarters. So you're saying that the patient new basin start, you expect it to be steady. So wondering I'm wondering that -- so are you saying that the sales could be choppy a little bit. But again, what you are saying is that as you exit 2026 you could see you are confidently driving sequential growth, but just wondering that how are you -- how would you characterize the next few quarters as you integrate the business into your own business.
Yes. So as we move from Q3 to Q4, we would anticipate seeing some sequential growth. And then as you think about going into next year, it's really about that momentum. But as we've talked about, it's that mix of new patient additions and being offset by the discontinuations, and we feel like we'll be through the bolus of the discontinuations here in this quarter. So we would expect to be sequential growers as we've said in Q4 and beyond.
We'll take our next question from Anupam Rama with JPMorgan.
Just wondering what some of the physician feedback has been on some of the 2-year CRENESSITY data in both adults and peds. And how these data could impact kind of uptake of the product?
Thanks, Anupam. Yes, we're really pleased about the feedback we're getting from the physicians respect to our 2-year data that we recently presented at Endo. Of note, this included both adult and pediatric data and indicated long-term benefits with respect to both antigen reduction and also [indiscernible] corticoid steroid reduction as well. So really, really excited by that feedback. Also, this is in the context of a really nice safety tolerability profile. So of note, at this point, we have well over 35,000 patient weeks of exposure. Again, very important, bearing in mind the breadth of the population that we're treating with CRENESSITY.
We'll move next to Cory Kasimov with Evercore.
So given the recent acquisition of potential future competitors -- can you just talk a little bit about the clinical plan and anticipated time lines for your next-gen CRENESSITY assets to the extent that they're needed to help defend the franchise in the future? .
Yes. Thanks for the question. We do have our next-generation medicine going through clinical development right now. That's MPIP-435. This is a protein-based therapeutic peptide that we're developing that would be a once weekly or less frequent dose medicine for patients wanting that particular option of not having to worry about taking the medicine on a day-to-day basis.
It may offer additional advantages above that in addition to that because of the PK profile. So we have great Phase I data that's come out of the program thus far, and we look forward to setting a Phase II study shortly and bringing that to patients as quickly as we can. I will say going back to CRENESSITY, just for a moment that it's set a really high bar. It's got great efficacy, great safety, great tolerability and what an outstanding label that we're able to get from the clinical program.
We've got multiple formulations, a wide spectrum of age ranges that are applied to the medicine. And now, as Sanjay just mentioned, multiple years of clinical data that we'll be able to lean on in a multiple year head start. I say this because -- this high bar not only makes it more difficult for our competitors, but even our own programs in our clinical portfolio. So we're really excited about the position that we have right now with CRENESSITY. A lot of room still to grow. We got about 15% of the market currently under CRENESSITY Care, and we're going to continue growing that out over time to become that standard of care for patients.
We'll move next to Jay Olson with Oppenheimer.
Congrats on the quarter and congrats to Samir. Our question is related to the future of your psychiatry franchise with data readouts for Osavampator. And directly, do you expect the next year. Do you have the commercial infrastructure that you would like to have to launch those 2 products? Or I guess, how are you thinking about building out that organization?
Thanks, Jay. So the way I would characterize it is that we have a really good foundation for future infrastructure that would be required for either osavampator or direclidine or both. As you know, we have a substantial footprint today in psychiatry as well as in long-term care and a very strong reputation with those provider communities. .
If you look at the profile of either of those 2 medicines, it might require us to bolster our teams or to do some reorganization work, but I think that we're in a very good place in terms of being able to leverage our existing foundation. And you may recall that when we were talking about the planned expansion of our INGREZZA team last fall we said that the value of that expansion was not only to accelerate the growth of our INGREZZA business, but also to set us up nicely for future launches of our Phase III psychiatry assets.
So I don't anticipate any near-term changes to our footprint. But certainly, I think we're well positioned to accelerate those adjustments to our commercial platform on the other side of positive Phase III data
I think that would be a great day if OSA, in particular, is a positive as you think about going into primary care to be able to help those with major depressive disorder. That would require a step-up in overall investment within SG&A and 2028, 2029 type time frame, but I think you'd agree with me that would be something we'd all enjoy to have the privilege of doing.
But in the near term, I think we're focused on executing as Eric said, with INGREZZA and continuing to expand the impact we're having across the psychiatry community today.
We will take our next question from Akash Tewari with Jefferies.
A few questions on your obesity efforts. So for 2118 8, the CRF 2 asset, what do you expect for monotherapy weight loss in muscle preservation in your Phase I trial when you get into obese patients -- and then for 1968, your GGG, is that already in the clinic? I'm surprised you're able to start a combo trial with the CRF this year without any monotherapy data?
And then finally, when we think about the combo, any sense on when we'd be able to get the first full cut of data there.
Thanks so much for the questions. With respect to our CFR 2 agonist, Obviously, we're very excited about this molecule. This is our first obesity molecule in the clinic. We're currently accumulating a Phase I data and we're due to have a signal-seeking study readout next year with respect to both weight loss and also lean mass preservation. So that's really exciting for us.
I'm not sure I'll comment specifically on the exact bar we're looking at. But clearly, we're looking for a robust effect, not just on weight loss, as I said, but also muscle mass preservation. We have other molecules behind CRFR2 with respect to our obesity portfolio, which will be shortly entering the clinic.
We'll move next to Josh Schimmer with Cantor.
How are you thinking about the ability to smooth top and bottom line growth through the 2029 INGREZZA IRA implementation year? And just the answer to that question depends on your Phase III readouts next year. How do you expect that to play out under various pipeline scenarios?
Thanks, Josh. This is Kyle. Obviously, we're keeping an eye on our MFP to IRA outcome. Those discussions will start next year, and certainly, we'll keep everyone updated once we know our MFP that would be applied to INGREZZA in 2029. But I think overarching what we see in the evolution of our commercial portfolio are medicines that are growing over that time frame as well. .
So we think we'll end up being in a good position there to see continued top line revenue growth through the end of this decade and beyond. On the earnings side, or I should say, on the income or an expense side of the equation, we also have Phase III trials that will be sunsetting over that same time frame as well in our pipeline, switches more to an earlier mid-stage type -- pipeline, excuse me. And I think that's going to be more or less a view into a steady state portfolio as we get to the end of this decade. And it all goes back to what we shared at the beginning of this year in terms of expectations around new Phase I, Phase II and Phase III starts. So I like what we have in terms of the company and how we set it up, and we'll keep people informed over the next couple of years as we get closer to 2029.
Yes. EPS variability is really going to be based upon, as you said, the impact of the IRA implementation in 2029. But on the expense side, as I said earlier, is if osavampator is positive, we will spend in advance of sales to build up that sales force in that market. So I think you'll have episodic investments that may lead to some earnings variability, but our North Star is to grow revenue over the long term. And I think from those investments, we'll have very nice earnings growth as you look into the 2030s.
We'll move next to Brian Abrahams with RBC Capital Markets.
It seems like you're seeing really nice growth in the prescriber base for CRENESSITY. I guess I'm curious, what proportion of your target practices are still not using chronicity at all. What is -- at this point, what are some of the barriers for them here at this stage of the launch? And how might you expect to overcome them?
Yes. It's an interesting question. I think the way I'd characterize it is that we're seeing really nice expansion of new prescribers each quarter. And at this stage, we're still, I'd call it, early in the overall commercial ramp. And so there's a long way to go. .
The reason I sort of qualified my comments a little bit is that as we learn more about this market and with our patient finding opportunity, there is some movement in and out of our target list over time. But overall, the feedback has been very positive. Most of the physicians that have tried CRENESSITY have only treated 1 patient so far. And I think that's a function of 2 things. One is the flow of patients into their practices, especially in the adult setting, patients only come in maybe once a year. So it takes time if they have more than one patient to see them.
And then the second thing is really this what we call the long tail of this market, there's really not that many practices that have more than a handful of patients, and there's a lot of lot of physician practices that have only 1 or 2. So ultimately, we feel really good about the growth that we've seen, and we talked about this very steady and consistent pace that we're on. And I think that's mostly a testament to the patient finding efforts and, of course, the execution by our team.
We'll move next to Sean Laaman with Morgan Stanley.
My question is on the launch trajectory of CRENESSITY. You keep handling handily beating our numbers. I'm just wondering how the drug performs against your own internal expectations? Is it falling in line? And if so, when do you -- when would you be comfortable giving us guidance that's beating your expectations internally? What are some of the key areas that it's doing that.
I would say it's quite close to what our internal expectations have been. But with that said, we're learning a tremendous amount each quarter. I'd say from the beginning of launch, we've been very encouraged by the feedback that we're getting by clinicians and then also the high rates of persistency have been quite strong and we're seeing a lot of the benefits and hearing those back from clinicians in regards to the longer-term outcomes and the benefit there.
So we're still really quite early in launch, only 6 quarters in it's premature for us to start thinking about giving a more formal guide. But I would say our internal models are getting closer to the numbers that we're delivering, but still, I'd say, to the team, keep over-delivering. They've done an incredible job developing a new product that's in the market for the first time in over 70 years and a lot of learning going on and a lot of excitement. So kudos to the team well done, and we'll address the guidance piece to your question as we get later in the year to next year.
We'll move next to Marc Goodman with Leerink Partners.
Yes. On VYKAT, I just want to make sure I understand, Matt, what you're saying. Are you saying that we should expect sales to be roughly about the same in 3Q was 2Q and then 4Q should show some incremental growth versus 3Q. And the reason is because of this gating issue of timing issue, whatever you want to call it, of patients discontinuing from the bolus that occurred so called 6 months ago or so, something like that. And then just if I could, just another question. Just curious what the R&D team thinks about any learnings from the MAP like data that reported earlier this week.
Yes. Regarding VYKAT, I think you said it correctly, but I would go back and just say we've only had a product for 6 weeks. And it's a market that we've -- we are incredibly excited about. We're hearing great feedback from clinicians alike. So as you said, this is more of a function of getting through some of the bolus of discontinuations and then implementing some of the things that Eric laid out in terms of driving additional patients being helped with their PWS. So from an expectation perspective, I think what you said aligns with what I was trying to describe.
And I'll take the [indiscernible] like question. Maybe just to start with where [indiscernible] left off on LICAT. I just want to make sure everyone appreciates that we are going through an integration of the company. And obviously, that can be a little noisy as you work through that, just as a sales force expansion can be. But as you know, we are quite skilled in the art of sales force expansions across INGREZZA and CRENESSITY, and we've all come out on the other side much stronger, and we believe that will be the case for VYKAT.
In terms of Mapi, we did see their data come out here in the past couple of days. I think it's a good data point for further validating the orthosteric approach for using muscarinic agonist, although their approach is entirely different than our own, and it's worth calling out those differences here. very similar to COBEMFI, the approved medicine that utilizes the muscarinic mechanism. The map light approach also requires an add-back muscarinic antagonist to manage side effects.
Our approach with direclidine is the only approach a first-in-class approach using a selective M4 agonist that works just all right flying by itself. It doesn't require anything to add back for mitigating side effects. But we know at the end of the day, efficacy gets your foot in the door. It's really what you do on the other factors that allow you to win, things like safety and tolerability things like ease of administration, and that's where direclidine is really going to shine.
What we saw in our Phase II trial, very clean GI profile, no weight gain, no food effect once a day, no titration. That's how we're going to win here just as we've seen with other antipsychotics across the spectrum from low to high efficacy. They all went on safety, tolerability and ease of administration.
We'll move next to David Amsellem with Piper Sandler.
VYKAT question. Can you clarify how much of your discontinuations are from edema and regarding the management of edema -- what are you going to be doing to sort of help patients and practitioners manage through that so as to minimize discontinuations due to fluid retention.
Yes. This is Kyle. I don't think we're going to get into the nature of the discontinuations. But I will say, just like any medicine, especially one that you're inheriting, acquiring is that there's always the opportunity to improve messaging and education. I know that's going to be a big part of what our team looks at. And the messaging in education is the same, again, across all medicines that we look at for caregivers, for patients and for physicians.
And when it comes to VYKAT XR, obviously, you look at even something as simple as a dosing regimen. It's a titration schedule that's required through a weight-based mechanism. That's unique. So making sure that you can educate across that appropriately also setting the right expectations in terms of efficacy. This is not like a pain medicine where you see relief the same day you take the medicine. It can take months for hyperphagia to improve, so these are all things that we're working through right now, and we'll continue to work with the team to get in a really good spot as we look to fully bring the Soleno team on board here to Neurocrine and leverage the learnings on both sides to do what's best for patients here.
We'll take our next question from Ash Verma with UBS.
So maybe just on the perspective of CRENESSITY, I wanted to get your thoughts on the competitive dynamic here. So for tumor which what I acquired, they did note that there were 7 MFT [indiscernible] cases versus the prior disclosure by Kinetic, which was 2 cases, but they still end up paying a pretty hefty premium. I just wanted to understand from your perspective, what do you think drove that? Is that something that ultimately signals to you that [indiscernible] can be a very big market? Or is it possible that the LFT elevations actually be a nonissue.
Yes. Thanks, Ash, for the question. It's really hard for us to comment on the competitor or any competitors in the spaces that we work in. All I can share with you is the excitement that we have around our own medicine. I'll go back to the CATALYST data that we have 2-year data, 35,000 patient weeks of exposure and accumulating over time where we're able to show 70% of patients at the 2-year period were on a physiological dose of a GC and 70% of patients were at a physiological concentration of their androgens. That's a pretty good air to be in for CH and really for any medicine, and we'll continue to hopefully accumulate more data of that kind and type as time moves along to show the real benefits for patients.
We will take our next question from Myles Minter with William Blair.
Congrats on the I just wanted to hear your thoughts on the CRENESSITY sort of peak opportunity here. Are you still describing that drug as a blockbuster opportunity? I only ask as recent acquisition seems to put your competitors saying that, that might be a $3 billion market, a [indiscernible] on an annualized basis, the best part of 3 quarters of a billion dollars already. And Eric, you said you're really, really early on in the launch. So I'm just wondering whether a blockbuster drug is the right way to think about this or like that multibillion dollar sort of claim that the competitive acquisition made is more relevant here.
We're going to take this to the highest number that we can and help as many patients as possible, Myles. I think you said it quite well. The trajectory so far has been very, very strong, very nice, and I think it reflects the great need in the market, the great product we have and also the great team. .
When you look back over time at other rare disease launches like this, you can see peak penetration between 30% and 50% for chronic type medicines. So when you look at what the peak opportunity is, that's the ZIP code. I know that's a pretty broad range, and we're going to work to getting to as high up in that range as possible. But yes, you can get to a really nice figure quite quickly, but it really comes at the end of the day, focus on helping as many patients with possible for their CAH.
We'll move next to Rudy Li with Wolfe Research.
I have a question for the pipeline. Just a quick follow-up. Given the trajectory of [indiscernible] and the feedback I'm just curious on your thoughts on the Mascarenas opportunity and maybe just talk about your overall strategy, building a [indiscernible] franchise because you have multiple products maybe targeting different indications. .
Thanks, Rudy. This is Samir here. I really appreciate the question on the Moscone. So we've got 4 shots on goal here with our Muscronic franchise. -- directly in NBI -568, that's in Phase III right now for the treatment of schizophrenia and Phase II bipolar Phase II study right now ongoing in bipolar mania all studies remain on track time line-wise there.
Our next-generation NBI 570 that's an M4 preferring M1 M4 dual. Right now that's in a Phase II study for the treatment of schizophrenia, where we see opportunity there is the potential for a long-acting injectable. This class of medicines that has generated significant commercial sales for other companies here, and we view this as the one and only potential LAI within the muscarinic space. [indiscernible] 569 that's earlier right now, it's an M1 M4 dual as well that we're studying in an early study in Alzheimer's disease. The view there is to take that into Alzheimer's disease psychosis, and we've got a fourth compound NBI 567 that will be soon starting a Phase II study in Alzheimer's cognition. Overall, we feel like we have a best-in-class muscarinic franchise here, really looking forward to getting the direct within data next year and going from there.
The only thing I would add to that, these are all -- these are all orthosteric agonist that don't require any add-back to block side effects. They are selective on M1 and M4, so they're unique in that regard and puts us in a really unique space in the muscarinic category.
We'll take our next question from Sumant Kulkarni with Canaccord.
This is a bit of a strategic one that has long-term financial implications. So with each commercial product you now have, there's typically been an aspect of pioneering commercialization with the first approvals for the respective indications. But your pipeline indicates -- includes candidates in large markets where not only do several products exist, but the competitors are typically much larger organizations as well. So could you share any targets for what a steady-state longer-term operating margin target might look like for Neurocrine as you yourself grow a lot larger?
I'll let Kyle talk about the [indiscernible] -- or sorry, the strategic aspect of how we're going to compete against larger guys in these markets. But I also would comment that Eric and team have done a heck of a job in developing markets and feel like we can compete quite well with medicines like the muscarinic and also the [indiscernible].
We're not going to give long-term operating margin guidance, but you can see we're becoming quite a profitable company where operating income on a non-GAAP basis is over 30%. So I think our focus right now is invest on SG&A to grow sales as much as possible and then also to advance the pipeline and be able to get to these opportunities where we can compete in some of the larger markets where we believe that we can win in.
And maybe just to add to that, this is Kyle, from a strategic perspective, what we're doing is setting up the pipeline to have a portfolio of not only first but best-in-class medicines across urology, psychiatry and endocrinology as well as immunology. These are areas that we think we can compete in, in a number of ways, either through the molecules that we design or ultimately in ownership of particular mechanisms that are unique to Neurocrine. We've talked about obesity on this call as an example, and we're leading in this category, we believe, with a CRF2 agonist, which is quite novel. .
And of course, we know a lot about the biology being this being -- this being the founding biology of the company. So ultimately, what we do by using this approach is diversifying risk across different therapeutic areas. We appreciate all the psychiatry programs that we have, and we believe we have all winners there. But we also know that the full profile of those assets are fully known until the other side of Phase IIIs.
We balance that by actually being in some of these larger disease states like obesity, where we have biomarkers, objective endpoints and the ability to see data in Phase Ib studies. So overall, I think what we've done is we've really leveled out the portfolio and ability to play for some big wins on some larger opportunities as well as stay with within our wheelhouse of more traditional neurotic programs as well that you're used to seeing. But overall, it's going to set the company quite well up over the long term.
We'll take our next question from Danielle Brill with Truist.
A follow-up on CRENESSITY. So you guys highlighted really strong growth in your prescriber base, but can you comment on trends in repeat prescribing? I think you noted roughly 2/3 prescribers of only were in a single prescription on your prior call. Are you seeing existing prescribers begin to treat more patients? Or is growth still being driven primarily by adding new prescribers? And then as you look forward, where do you see the bigger opportunity expanding prescriber breadth or penetration from the existing base?
So I guess the way that I would characterize that it's a little bit of both in terms of depth versus breadth. We still are adding a substantial number of new prescribers each quarter. And to date, most of the prescribers that have tried chronicity have only treated 1 or 2 patients. Now this is a market that is a [indiscernible] wide in the sense that there's a limited number of practices that have more than a handful of classic CAH patients. And then there's a lot of CAH patients that are out there in the community and a lot of the physicians that treat them might only have 1 patient.
So I think that we will continue to see this dynamic of a lot of physicians having only 1 or 2 patients under treatment. But at this stage of the launch, only about 1.5 years into it, essentially, we're still seeing a lot of adoption by new prescribers. And we think there's a ways to go in terms of building that prescriber base over time.
We'll move next to Igal Komavitz with Citi.
Congrats on a strong quarter. My question -- I had a curious question on CRENESSITY. Regarding the rarer subtypes, specifically the 11 beta-hydroxylase patients -- what's the status in terms of progress getting the payers to cover that subtype? I'd be curious there. And then quickly on VYKAT, do you have any comments with respect to ex U.S. strategy? And where does that fit in terms of your relative prioritization with regard to that the asset?
I just want to reinforce that the the coverage and reimbursement for CRENESSITY has been excellent and has really exceeded our expectations really from the very beginning of the launch. From a coverage perspective, typically, what's required, this is a specialty medicine and the physician has to fill out our prior authorization. Typically, they're required to attest that the patient has classic CAH usually not defining what particular subtype genetic subtype they have, that they're 4 years of age or older and that they're currently on glucocorticoids.
For the vast majority of patients, those are the coverage criteria. And we've seen really high claim approval rates. We've seen that claims tend to get approved pretty quickly. and that it's very affordable for patients with the majority of patients, actually over 90% paying $10 or less per month. So really good on the reimbursement side.
Yes. In terms of VYKAT XR in ex U.S., our first priority right now is to fully integrate the team and make sure that we're doing everything that we can to help the patients here in the U.S. with the approval. As you may recall, Sono did withdraw the EMA filing for review during the closing process of the transaction. So I think once we get our hands around the integration and complete that and move the medicine forward here, we'll go back and revisit the opportunity in territories outside the U.S.
In the meantime, for Europe, all patients that are currently on VYKAT XR will continue on their treatment, and we'll look at some name patient program types of vehicles to help the patients they may want to have access in that region.
We'll move next to Daman [indiscernible] with Guggenheim.
So on the Frederick ataxia program, what we expect from the 2027 Phase I readout more in details tissue compartments will report frataxin protein levels from [indiscernible]? And what would you view as a proof of mechanism. And also, will you report also clinical results, together with the biomarker data?
No, I appreciate the question. We're excited about the Fredetaxia gene therapy program here at Neurocrine. We'll be looking at starting clinical development later this year. And then once we get that study up and running, we'll look forward for actual data in patients towards the end of next year. The nature of what we'll be sharing, I think we'll determine that over the next couple of months into the beginning of the year. And hopefully, we'll have some more commentary around our R&D Day in December.
We'll move next to David Hoang with Deutsche Bank.
Congrats on the quarter. So I was curious to get any feedback that you guys may have or your latest thoughts on the competitive dynamic and threat from your competitor in the VYKAT inhibitor space. So I think your competitor also printed a very strong quarter. They have talked about $3 billion in peak sales and a continued uptake of the Astero XR product. And so as you look over the next few years, recognizing there's some pricing dynamics there. Just what's your, I guess, thoughts on how the market share may play out between 2 products. And if the pie will continue to keep growing in TV or there'll be any share shift between products.
Yes, I'll just start off by saying that the 10 years, almost 10 years into the launch of INGREZZA, the TD market continues to grow very rapidly. We see that there's still a substantial number of untreated patients and even undiagnosed patients out there. And so our focus remains on driving awareness, driving diagnosis and then, obviously, being able to educate providers on the unique benefits of INGREZZA.
And I think that and obviously also continuing to provide strong reimbursement support. And the results speak for themselves. INGREZZA has been the most preferred and the most prescribed VMAD 2 inhibitor since day one and continues to do so. And we've been looking at the most current quarter with strong market growth for VMAD-IIs, INGREZZA outgrew the market. And so we can expect to continue to see that momentum carry forward through the balance of this year.
And as Kyle said earlier, from a coverage and reimbursement perspective, we expect to have good coverage in '27 and '28 that would enable continued strong growth in terms of adoption. So overall, just very pleased with our performance, and we'll let the results speak for themselves.
We'll take our next question from Evan Seigerman with BMO Capital Markets.
I want to touch on osavampator. And may it's clearly a large market. You're very enthusiastic about it. Just walk us through kind of what you're solving for that the existing antidepressant strategies really don't do well -- and what do you mean to show in a Phase III for this truly to be viewed as differentiated rather than incremental.
Yes. Thanks for the question. So just for context, osavampator, is at [indiscernible] and we think provides unique advantages from a differentiation point of view from the existing standard of care. So with respect to efficacy, we're expecting greater efficacy, particularly in individuals who have already being unresponsive or not so responsive to a whole slew of other antidepressants with different mats of action.
But secondly, and also just as importantly, a really nice saving tolerability profile. That was one of the most impressive things actually respect to our Phase II cavitary data was the safety tolerability and the implication is long-term compliance with this medication.
And that does conclude the question-and-answer portion of today's call. I'd now like to turn it back to Kyle Gano for any additional or closing remarks.
Thanks, everyone, for joining us today. We appreciate your time and thoughtful questions. We look forward to continuing the conversation with many of you, certainly at the investor conferences and meetings throughout the remainder of the year. Until then, thanks again for your support and interest, and have a great afternoon and goodbye for now.
Thank you. This brings us to the end of today's meeting. We appreciate your time and participation. You may now disconnect.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Q2 2026 Earnings Call
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Q2 2026 Earnings Call
Strong Q2: nearly $1B pro forma sales, INGREZZA guidance raised, VYKAT XR integrated but early, 2027 Phase III catalysts ahead.
📊 Quarter at a Glance
- Revenue: Over $950M in Q2 2026 (+~40% year‑over‑year)
- INGREZZA: $716M (+15% YoY); full‑year guidance raised to $2.825B–$2.875B
- CRENESSITY: $184M; ~15% of diagnosed population prescribed
- VYKAT XR: Pro forma Q2 sales $94M; Neurocrine recognized $54M post close (May 18)
- EPS & Cash: Non‑GAAP EPS $2.85 (earnings per share); ~$500M cash, no debt
🎯 What Management Says
- Portfolio: Company framed as diversified: three first‑in‑class commercial medicines driving scale and funding R&D
- Integration: Soleno/VYKAT XR acquisition seen as immediately accretive; focus on commercial integration, patient support and prescriber education
- Pipeline: Emphasis on mid‑/late‑stage R&D with Phase III readouts for osavampator (major depressive disorder) and direclidine (schizophrenia) expected in H2 2027
🔭 Outlook & Guidance
- INGREZZA guide: Raised to $2.825B–$2.875B for 2026 (midpoint ≈ +13% YoY)
- VYKAT trajectory: Expect sequential growth exiting 2026 as integration completes and launch bolus effects normalize
- Acquisition impact: Soleno purchase ≈ $2.9B; ~$150M acquisition‑related costs expected in 2026 ($130M recognized in Q2); ~$20M noncash purchase accounting amortization in Q2
❓ Analyst Q&A
- Pricing/access: INGREZZA team sees strong Medicare coverage now and is monitoring Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)‑era payer discussions for 2027; detailed pricing impact TBD
- CRENESSITY uptake: Launch described as steady and sustainable; strong two‑year data and high persistency support continued adoption
- VYKAT concerns: Questions on discontinuations from the initial launch bolus; management expects stabilization (target long‑term discontinuation ~25–30%) and sequential Q4 growth
- Commercial readiness: Psychiatry launch infrastructure discussed—existing footprint can be expanded if Phase III psychiatry data are positive
⚡ Bottom Line
- Takeaway: Neurocrine delivered a transformational quarter: raised guidance, bolstered scale with an accretive rare‑disease acquisition and preserved cash neutrality, while 2027 clinical readouts provide material upside—near‑term risks are integration costs, launch normalization for VYKAT XR and evolving Medicare/pricing dynamics.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Goldman Sachs 47th Annual Global Healthcare Conference 2026
1. Question Answer
Welcome to the Goldman Sachs. [indiscernible] You don't have any questions, yes.
Very good. Well, thanks, everyone, for joining us here. We're thrilled to have the team from Neurocrine and Adam Green in the audience for our conversation here today. Maybe just to start, you guys have recently done a transaction. But maybe you could just talk about the core competencies of Neurocrine as a business and how you think then kind of strategically about which products you bring in-house and speak to the Vykat piece.
Can I ask a few questions along the way too?
Yes. I don't promise to answer.
Yes. We will be making forward-looking statements and part of that will be whether you want disperse or the next to win. So we will have an FLS for that. But yes, we have a lot going on at Neurocrine. I was just talking to a gentleman in the back, not Adam. And we were talking about how we went from INGREZZA only to a multiproduct company, and that's been just amazing. And you and I talked about that briefly yesterday. We're actually a real thriving company now, generating cash flows, investing in our pipeline, 20 to 20 or so commercial assets at this point.
So we have a lot of great things going on at the company. INGREZZA guidance range this year, $2.7 billion to $2.8 billion. It's amazing 9 years after launch that it's still growing double digits. We get asked that question all the time, wow, how can you continue to grow INGREZZA and it really comes down to the fundamentals of the market. So many patients with tardive dyskinesia didn't have any help until 2017. And now we're helping those patients and continue to have great growth. CRENESSITY was the game changer for us, obviously, coming after INGREZZA.
CRENESSITY was approved in a rare endocrine product or a disease called congenital adrenal hyperplasia. We've been able to help about 10% of patients in the first year of launch, and we have $150 million of quarterly revenue this past quarter. And then last, you mentioned this, VYKAT XR.
It was a great acquisition, I think, for us, and I'll ask your perspective in a moment. But it brought to us another rare endocrine product. So we have 3 now, 2 rare endocrines or rare endocrine franchise and that was approved in Prader-Willi syndrome, and they had around $100 million of sales last quarter. So when you stack all 3 of those products up over $900 million of revenue at this point and 97% plus gross margin. So you think about the cash flow that is generated from these products, it's quite significant that then allows us to reinvest back into R&D at a rate of 30% to 35%. And as I said earlier, we have 20 clinical programs, the 3 headline programs Osavampator, which is in a Phase III study that's being studied in major depressive disorder. It's an AMPA potentiator.
The second is a Phase III program with direclidine in schizophrenia muscarinic agonist. Both of those programs will have data in 2027. And the second study for direclidine will read out in 2028. So a transformative year on the psych side next year. And then the third program on highlight is actually a Phase I study. I remember, we talked about this at R&D Day, I was sitting right next to you, Grant, and it's in obesity. And it's CRF2 agonist, and we're going to actually have healthy patient obese patient data in the -- in late 2027. So a lot going on, on the pipeline front. And then with our capital, you can see we're generating non-GAAP net income of around $200 million at this point and only growing.
We deployed our capital towards buying Soleno falling cash for $2.9 billion, and that acquisition will be immediately accretive to us. So a lot of great things going on at Neurocrine, and I think you asked about the Soleno transaction. How did that check the box for Neurocrine? And I think it's quite clear from a strategy perspective, a second rare endocrine product for us and adds to the diversification and scale that we would a leading neuroscience company. So there were 3 fundamental variables that we had to get comfortable with to underwrite the deal. The first one was peak penetration. And peak penetration would be at the higher end of the 30% to 50% because there is no other approved treatment option for Prader-Willi.
This was literally the first treatment option ever available to patients. And our expectation is that this will have very nice penetration. The second piece was discontinuation. And this was a question that had been coming up to them as a company and we had to do our own diligence in looking at their patient data as well as looking at what other rare disease launches have done on the discontinuation rate. We underwrote it at around 25% or so discontinuation.
And then lastly, we had to get comfortable with the intellectual property. And we found in reviewing their patent applications as well as their issued patents. We feel comfortable that the IP should extend out into the mid-2040s and that's something that will be clear to -- the street as we get later this year. So I think if we hit any of those variables, we're going to be at a spot where we drive shareholder value well in excess of that $2.9 billion. But what was your take on the transaction?
I'm not on stage right now, but I mean, I think, generally speaking, talking to investors, the view is that you're already annualizing at $400 million in sales. It's already profitable from even just a financial picture. You don't have to think a whole lot of growth room here in order to be comfortable with the deal. But I do want to talk about the growth room here, which is -- as you think about it and you did -- it sounds like a good amount of diligence on your own before underwriting this asset. What have you anticipated lease to get to that and how do you think about the puts and takes could inform cost?
In the pace as quick as possible. But I think when you look back at rare disease launches, you typically get to a path to peak of between 3 and 5 years. And so that's our base expectations. There will be some noise in the early stages First of all, let me back up. I can't take any credit for how the launch has gone so far because this was not underneath our wings and the team did a really excellent job, number one, getting it approved. That was a big feat. And then second, getting it to market. And as I said earlier, if you think about these patients with hyperplasia, they have is unrelenting like obsessive seeking of food and think about the hungriest moment you've ever had and that hunger never goes away even if you're eating.
So think about the devastation that's having on families. I know you have a family yourself and I could only imagine the disruption that has to the patient, to the family and over the long run, some very serious health implications. So getting this approved was an amazing feat for the company -- and then at the time of launch, you had a bolus of patients that rushed to getting treated. And of course, it was on our radar and trying to understand the dynamics there.
So you had a bolus of patients in the first quarter and then you've gotten now into more of a steady state of patient additions where Q1 was very similar to what they saw in Q4. And so from a modeling perspective, I know it gets nuanced in a bid complicated quarter-to-quarter because you have that natural discontinuation rate from the bolus of patients that were added early in the launch.
But ultimately, what you'll find is steady patient adds will stack and compound on top of each other. And over the next, call it, 12 to 18 months, I think we'll be on a good trajectory to become a blockbuster medicine. But there will be some nuances in the near term just because of the bolus effect and as it goes through the natural rate of discontinuation. But we're still early. I mean, we've owned for 3 weeks, so I can't claim to be an expert, but we're excited to have this part of our franchise within rare endocrine.
You mentioned thinking you could get to kind of the 50% range in terms of penetration. And I guess what does that translate to in terms of revenue potential?
Yes. I mean we see this as clearly a blockbuster medicine. There's 10,000 patients with PWS and if you think about 5,000 patients on therapy or net that down for those who discontinue , it doesn't take a lot to become a blockbuster medicine at the price points that are here, and it's very similar in terms of pricing relative to CRENESSITY. So I think the team that we've inherited are very motivated to help these patients. They've been there from the beginning. There's a lot we're learning. This is a very complex patient universe, but the feedback that we're getting from the field has been quite strong.
The feedback that we look through when we are underwriting the deal. It sounds like the medicine works. I was on a KOL call yesterday talking about CAH. And this doctor also treated or it was part of the VYKAt trials and I asked them, does it work? He said absolutely, it works. And so that was always gratifying to hear the benefit that it's having on patients.
So I think it's just a matter of time and getting through some of the learnings how to titrate the medicine and getting education out there. And after that, I think we're going to see nice growth.
From an investor perspective, it feels a lot like the CRENESSITY story, I think, where we said CRENESSITY is going to be a blockbuster.
We believe it's going to be a great product. And then this past quarter, Q1, I think the Street is starting to feel that way as well. For VYKAT XR, we said it's going to be a blockbuster. That's only story, I think similar to CRENESSITY.
Recognizing it's already profitable even kind of in the first couple of quarters of launch of a much smaller company. I guess, could you talk about the potential synergies you see between VYKAT XR, both in terms of competencies in terms of OpEx?
Yes. The synergies for this were clearly strategic and commercial, not necessarily an OpEx synergy with already a profitable company to be able to grow sales and leverage that infrastructure as well as our infrastructure. I think it's naturally going to flow through and be quite an accretive business to us. But the deal wasn't done for cost synergies alone. There, of course, will be some level of redundancy that we'll work through over time. But the strategic lens is that we'll for a long, long while, have a stand-alone VYKAT XR sales force focused on helping people with PWS and we'll have a stand-alone CRENESSITY sales force that is focused on CAH.
And I think for both of those products, the price, the unmet need, the first time ever launching a product in those markets that deserves full attention. And that's our focus, let's invest behind growing sales. And I think the profit flow-through is in quite significant.
Maybe it's a good segue to CRENESSITY itself, which has obviously been a huge focus over the past 1.5 years post launch. Recognizing you're no longer sharing patient start metrics, I guess, what could you share about what you're seeing the launch year-to-date. And I know you just saw some doctors yesterday, so maybe you could tie that -- those conversations into that answer.
Yes. I -- well, let me give a quick anecdote story. I was in Chicago last week at a different conference, and I met with the major AOL there. And she is a really interesting word. She used the word fun when describing using CRENESSITY. And I was sharing with her, as many of you guys know, my son has congenital adrenal hyperplasia, and that's the reason why I joined Neurocrine.
And so we were talking about treating patients. She has given me a little bit of advice and we're talking about her use of CRENESSITY and he mentioned how fun it was she said that she was talking to another colleague who prescribed CRENESSITY for the first time. And 6 weeks later, that doctor called her and said, "You're right, this is really fun, " when they looked at the lab values.
So I think that this is something that as we continue to develop the market as people are seeing the results as we're able to publish longer-term data, which you'll see later this week at Endo. I think the confidence is only growing in terms of the potential for CRENESSITY to benefit in patients.
There's some natural limiters on the pace adoption patients only go and see their clinician 1 to 2 times per year. So they're infrequent and in terms of visiting. The second piece is it's a really fragmented patient population. You have about 85% of the patients spread across many prescribers that maybe only see 1 to 3 patients in a year. So you have CRENESSITY from -- or sorry, CAH for the most part, being a very phenomenal part of a practice of an endocrinologist, a local one. And then the patients are only going in 1 to 2 times per year.
It sets itself up for the need for continued education of the need for continued momentum on the patient side and them actually asking for the therapy. And we're seeing good progress, but I'd call it steady. And that's been the operative word, very steady and consistent new patient start forms as you think about Q4 and Q1.
Great. So you have shared that a majority of physicians who started to prescribe CRENESSITY, have done it for one or a selective number of patients. Can you talk about this versus the number of patients those doctors might be seeing in a year? And how are you thinking about unlocking greater depth for the product?
Yes. I think that there's an opportunity here on breadth and depth. We recently expanded our sales force and the main reason is, number one, ensure that we touch every clinician that we can that potentially has a classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia patients. So the sales force activity is going to be an important aspect here. These clinicians, as I mentioned earlier, maybe only see 1 to 3 patients in the entire year. So there is an opportunity to go deeper with those as they get more experience and seeing the first patient do on therapy.
It's usually about a 6-month cycle of getting androgen levels reducing or modifying with corticoids seeing how those are going. So I think there is a little bit of learning that's going on and trying to identify how is it working and then ultimately, what patients could benefit from the medicine.
In our clinical trials in our 2-year data, we've been able to show that this works for 70% to 80% of patients who try it. And I think that, ultimately, that's the goal in the marketplace is that we would get to a really significant peak penetration level similar to what I mentioned on VYKAT XR, can we get to 50% or so. That's our goal, and that's the hope here. But really, in terms of where does the next patient come from? We have opportunities that are left still at our centers of excellence, significant opportunity there. But then beyond that, it really is fragmented across many prescribers across the United States.
Matt gave a good example of the story about Chicago, where the physician had spoken to the other physician who's just trying it now endocrinologist or kind of classic thinkers but I think internally, what we feel those kind of stories are going to continue to replicate. So you're going to have this network effect over time, which gets you to peak sales pretty quick versus INGREZZA, which is still trying to find a seat.
How are you thinking about the competitive clinical landscape in CA recognizing there's other development stage programs? And what do you think the differentiating features will be of CRENESSITY over time?
Well, number one, being first to market is a great place to be. And especially when you have an efficacious product that's safe and that we're going to have significant data over time here the primary market, the #1 most motivated market is in pediatrics. And in pediatrics, the doctor was with yesterday, the question was, does it work? And what are the side effects.
And the side effect profile of CRENESSITY, I think, is quite strong. And the longer-term data that we have, it would be hard to imagine that you could displace an entrenched products like CRENESSITY that's working in that safe. And we're going to do everything we end to defend our turf. We're committed to helping CAH patients, and we're going to continue to do so over long run.
We've set the bar really high for the Classic CAH patient population with CRENESSITY competition, including our own internal molecules, like we have a tough standard. We have next generation CAH products that are coming out. So when you look at the totality across efficacy, safety and tolerability that CRENESSITY has, it's going to be a tough one to beat.
Maybe switch gears a little bit and go to INGREZZA. You're coming off a couple of quarters of record base growth even this many years into launch, and you mentioned still trying to peak. I guess what do you attribute the success in terms of driving record patient growth? And how sustainable do you think that will continue to be?
It's been a tremendous market for us. I think at the time of launch, we expected peak revenue to be $600 million. That just shows you how good people are forecasting. Now we're at $2.7 billion to $2.8 billion of sales, and it's just a reflection of...
Its better for numbers to go that direction.
That's right. It's better to...
But you want to make sure you make the right investment behind it if it's going to be higher. But you do have tardive dyskinesia carry movement disorder that's caused by prolonged exposure to antipsychotics. As you know, and up until 2017, there was absolutely no treatment options. So there is no reason in a diagnosis of tardive dyskinesia. So over the last 9 years now, we've slowly but surely inched up diagnosis, which is now about 50% of patients have been diagnosed with tardive dyskinesia. So when you think about what does it take to continue to grow these record patients each quarter, it's diagnosis which is aided by our sales force expansion.
And second is keeping tardive dyskinesia on the radar of those clinicians. Clinicians rightfully so are driving and thinking about the underlying mental health condition of the patient they're not necessarily thinking about tardive dyskinesia. So sales rep calls, part of dyskinesia is now on the radar.
And then the third piece I would mention is just patients. Patients have these movements. They have no ideas caused by their antipsychotic and the likelihood of them asking a psychiatrist about those movements is like thinking about going to the dentist and asking the dentists to look at your ankle, it's not a natural thing to do. So direct-to-consumer advertising is something that we've been heavily investing in. You'll probably see some during the world up if you watch it. But yes, we have a great opportunity to help many more patients. But it really comes down to this being naive market that continues to grow and grow mildly.
There's 2 other tailwinds to add on here, though, in terms of the prevalence, we initially thought there were probably 500,000 patients in with this. That has grown to 800,000. The reason why is because antipsychotic use continues to the growth of the patient or the U.S. population.
So the prevalence number continues to grow. And then the second piece is the prescriber community, particularly in psych, we have a whole new class of folks called advanced practice providers, he's a nurse practitioners and what's now called physician associates who have prescriptive authority, and that has grown by about 30% over the last 3 years. You have those 2 factors that are also contributing to this ongoing growth that we're seeing in the market.
Because of the volume headwinds, you were able to deliver relatively flat quarter-over-quarter revenue in the first quarter despite pricing headwinds. As we start to lap those, how should we about revenue growth through the balance of the year and maybe tie that to the guidance that you've already provided?
Yes. quarterly year-on-year growth rates are going to be sort of distorted this year for a few reasons. If you recall, there were a couple of quarters last year, we had one less and one more billing week or order week. And then you had year-on-year, the price that you mentioned. We invested in expanding our access last year. We had one major formulary addition in the second quarter, and then we had another one in the third quarter. So I think for an investor, I would just take a step back and look at our annual guide of $2.7 billion to $2.8 billion.
It implies about in the mid-teens volume growth offset by an annual 4% to 5% year-on-year price headwind. That price headwind is more pronounced year-on-year in the first half, like you said, but over the second half of the year, it will be pretty flattish in terms of year-on-year price. So this product is going to be driven. The growth is going to be driven by continued diagnosis continued new patients being put on therapy.
And we had record numbers of new patients in Q1. So Q1 was a great quarter. That was a surprise for us. We didn't expect to have that level of new patients, and I think it's a testament team, testament to the product, a testament to the market. And of course, we'll go through the normal process that we have and review our guidance range once we get through the first half of the year. Just out of policy, we don't think one quarter is enough to call early in the year. So we've been asked that question a lot. Why didn't you change your guidance with such a good quarter. We said, look, it's good through the first half of the year, and then we'll reassess consistent with what our internal policy is for reviewing guidance.
And as you approach the entrance of IRA negotiated prices in the category next year, how does the volume growth that you've now set up kind of inform what you just do with respect to competitive dynamics as you move into that period?
Yes, I think the biggest aspect to volume growth is access and ensuring that if a patient is prescribed INGREZZA that they get INGREZZA. So access is something that we invested in last year. We now have coverage at around 70% or so of patients are on Medicare Part D formularies. And we would expect that to be pretty similar when we go into next year. From a financial perspective, how does that translate to revenue dollars, more likely, we're in the early stages of negotiation. Obviously, but we'll have some level of price concession. But between it being a great market and good strong volume, we would expect it to be a quite manageable period of time for us next year.
One of the things you guys have invested in commercial businesses sales force. Do you anticipate making any further investments in sales force infrastructure across these products?
I would say every time you make a sales force expansion, you expect it to be your last and so I think that for now, we feel quite good with our sales force. All frequency is a significant driver to sales growth. But when you look at the tiering of clinicians and the number of tons you can reach those clinicians with the size of our sales force, we feel quite good with where we're at.
However, if direclidine or osvamfator were positive and we wanted to start laying a greater foundation for launching future psych products. That's probably when we'd reassess should we add more reps now and maybe it a bit harder and then be in a position to jump quickly into the new products once they launch. So a lot of strategic things I will be thinking through over the long term. But right now, based upon the call activity and the new patients feel quite good with where we're at.
Well, you said before from a capital allocation perspective, there's been no better investment than putting it into INGREZZA, which is then the fuel behind feeding the rest of the pipeline.
Right. That's a reasonably good segue to the development program. So maybe we can start with Osavampator, you highlighted as one of the headline agents. And you anticipate Phase III data next year. Could you just like remind us in that you can drive from Phase II results into those Phase III?
Well, you have a validated pathway with what you see with esketamine. So we know the pathway has been validated there. The Phase II results were really compelling. So as a reminder, there were 2 doses of 1 mg and 3 mg. They both performed. They both worked. The 1 mg worked a little bit better than the 3 mg. So on day 28 of MADRS was a little bit over 4% change for baseline with an effect size of over 0.5 super compelling.
And then it continued to be better at day 56, with 7 -- over 7 change in MADRS size is more than 0.7%. So we've got already a validated pathway. We've got really compelling strong Phase II data. It's safe, well tolerated, in fact, in Phase I MAD SAD studies, we studied it out [indiscernible] for developing this. It had been studied up to 18 milligrams, right?
So this is -- we're going forward with the 1 mg dose. In 5 studies, 3 of the main ones for MDD is a randomized withdrawal study and there's an open-label extension study. But as you said, we're expecting data for those to come next year. And without a doubt, if I had to weight the impact of the pipeline readouts next year, of which there are 10 [indiscernible].
Okay. Assuming success in that program, I guess, what role do you see playing an NBD market? And how should we think...
[indiscernible] a brand-new mechanism of action, everything is SNRIs and SSRIs right now. So we have a chance to have a big impact here of the 20 million people who have MDD. This would be an adjunctive treatment as a subset of that. But assuming we can get close to replicating what we saw in Phase II, we got a really great opportunity to help a lot more people.
I think the goal, if it's efficacious and safe is that it would be second line treatment. I think as Todd said, you want somebody who had a little bit of a response from the -- an underlying first product, and then this would be the second one. I think it has all the attributes. As Todd said, in the Phase II, but it really comes into a competing Phase III, and that's like -- the main focus of our clinical team right now is to make sure that we're enrolling the trial enrolling it with quality patients and enrolling it -- or sorry, in monitoring those patients and those sites in a really controlled way our goal and not have a runaway study here.
We want to be able to get a clean read does this drug work or not work to have a failed study isn't going to be acceptable. We'd rather see a failed drug. But our hope, based upon what we saw in Phase II is a new agent that can really help so many people who struggle with depression and need better treatment on.
We kind of have an ace in the hole with Jaz Singh who is managing room who have previously been at Johnson & Johnson and ran esketamine trial. So he knows what it takes to run high-quality trials.
You also have a broad muscarinic portfolio. Can you talk about how you think the opportunity for that category will play out, particularly in the context of commercial results so far for the more advanced drugs in the loss?
Well, we're rooting for Cobenfy, to be clear. That's another -- that pathway has also been validated and with our lead program is a little bit different than Cobenfy, where Cobenfy is pan-muscarinic agnostic given with the peripheral antagonist. So it has some GI tolerability issues, food effect, multiple doses with our lead program, direclidine which is Phase III studies in schizophrenia. It is a direct agonist of M4.
So hopefully, we won't see this tolerability issues that Cobenfy has, they can be taken with or without food. It's one dose. And we'll have that data for the first of 2 studies next year. The second study right now is going to read out some time in 2028, we're also studying direclidine in bipolar mania, that's Phase II study just started this year.
I think the -- we get asked this question a lot and we always say I think anybody is going into the -- in the antipsychotic market like this. Schizophrenia is sort of a foot in the door but really in terms of value creation, it goes to what's the next indication is going to be that's added on top of this. So I do think there's clearly a differentiation that we'll have on the tolerability and use side of the equation. But ultimately, whether it's them or us or other companies in this space, it's really taking it beyond schizophrenia. Our first entry is bipolar mania by that we have a study going right now. And then we'll be looking at both our M4 as well as our M1/M4 that I think the thesis is that it also plays a role in cognition that we would be able to study that compound in a few other indications.
So I think if you fast forward to probably 18 months from now beyond the schizophrenia data, the whole of the data coming together the further indication strategy for Neurocrine will become quite clear. But right now, we do have a heavy investment in the muscular nice. We do think they play a clear role in psychiatry and also in cognition and we're going to you invest behind it, get the data, and then we'll decide where we go from there.
How are you thinking about the value of having like the breadth of portfolio versus investing behind the single product, assuming like direclidine works, for example?
Yes. Psychiatry is interesting. You've spent so many years trying to understand why certain things work. And I think if you have one shot, you may not make it. So we'd be happy with the lead program, solving all disease states. But you also want to take as many different types of shots on goal, and you might be surprised to see the benefits that somebody may have within broader psychiatric or cognitive condition. So we'll continue to run those tests run those experiments because we are committed to psych. But from a broader pipeline perspective, if you look at our pipeline chart, we talked a lot of the site programs, psych is high risk.
In a Phase III trial, you have a 50-50 like typically, is the medicine going to actually work in that's the lowest of any other therapeutic areas. So one of the strategies as a company is we have moved towards diversification in therapeutic areas. As I mentioned earlier, we do have a lot going on in obesity. We also have other elements in immunology that we'll be touching on at R&D Day later this year and the diversification, not that we don't care about site we love psyche, but we would like to also be talking about other programs across neurology, endocrinology and immunology.
And so I really truly feel like when you take a step back and think about Neurocrine, we're just getting started going from a single product to a multiproduct company in just 2 years with last quarter, over $900 million of sales, including VYKAT SR, a lot of their readouts coming over the next 18 months with a lot more coming behind that. We feel quite fortunate to be in the position that we're in today...
Right. I think that's a great place to end unless you do want to opine on the next. And with that, I think...
He is a per fan.
Well, I don't know what to do with that.
Thank you, Corinne. I appreciate it. .
Thanks.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Goldman Sachs 47th Annual Global Healthcare Conference 2026
Neurocrine is now a cash-generating, multi-product company—accretive rare-endocrine deals plus psychiatry Phase III readouts expected in 2027.
🎯 Key Message
- Summary: Neurocrine has transformed from a single-product firm into a diversified, high-margin business: INGREZZA fuels cash flow and guidance ($2.7–$2.8B), recent rare-endocrine launches (CRENESSITY, VYKAT XR) add near-term revenue, and management is plowing ~30–35% of revenue into a 20-program R&D slate with major psychiatry readouts in 2027.
⚡ Strategic Highlights
- Acquisition thesis: VYKAT XR (Prader‑Willi) was bought for $2.9B; underwriting assumes 30–50% peak penetration, ~25% discontinuation and patent protection into the mid‑2040s; deal expected to be immediately accretive.
- Commercial approach: Emphasis on focused, stand‑alone sales forces for each rare endocrine franchise, investment in access/education, and revenue leverage rather than large OpEx cuts.
- Pipeline focus: R&D reinvestment funds 20 clinical programs; headline assets are osavampator (AMPA potentiator) and direclidine (M4 muscarinic agonist) with Phase III readouts in 2027 and another direclidine readout in 2028; obesity CRF2 early data due late 2027.
🔭 New Information
- Launch metrics: Management cited CRENESSITY at roughly $150M quarterly and VYKAT XR around $100M last quarter; combined product portfolio contributes to company revenue exceeding $900M and very high gross margins (~97%+).
- Guidance update: No change to INGREZZA FY guidance ($2.7–$2.8B); company expects mid‑teens volume growth offset by a ~4–5% annual price headwind and will reassess guidance after H1.
❓ Analyst Q&A
- VYKAT diligence: Analysts pressed on peak uptake, discontinuation and IP; management reiterated their underwriting assumptions (30–50% peak, ~25% discontinuation, patents through mid‑2040s) as the basis for value creation.
- Launch dynamics: Discussion focused on bolus versus steady patient additions, fragmented prescriber base (many clinicians see 1–3 patients/year), and the need for sustained education and targeted sales coverage to deepen penetration.
- Pipeline execution: Questions on osavampator and direclidine emphasized Phase III enrollment quality and execution; Phase II data were positive but Phase III readouts are the binary catalysts to watch in 2027–2028.
⚡ Bottom Line
- Bottom Line: Neurocrine’s strategy leverages strong INGREZZA cash flow and accretive rare‑endocrine assets to fund an ambitious R&D program; upcoming psychiatry Phase III readouts are key upside catalysts while launch execution, discontinuation rates, Phase III risk and pricing/IRA pressures are the main near‑term risks for shareholders.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — 46th Annual William Blair Growth Stock Conference
1. Question Answer
Thank you everyone for joining us here at the 46th William Blair Annual Growth Stock Conference. I haven't been here for all 46 years, but I have been here for close to 10.
My name is Myles Minter. I'm a senior biotech analyst here at the firm. I cover the neurosciences and then genetic medicines, and it is my pleasure today to introduce Matt Abernethy, the CFO; and also to my right, Todd Tushla, Head of IR at Neurocrine Biosciences, fresh from the West Coast. So thanks very much for attending.
Myles, did disclose that he just came from Scotland. Is that right?
I did. I did.
And my last name is Abernethy, and that's Scottish. You can get some cookies ever go to that town, but really glad to be here. I went to business school in Chicago. And so always nice to see San Diego'esq weather in Chicago. Really nice to be able to be here with you guys today.
A little bit of fun, forward-looking statements. I will be making some, so I direct you to our SEC filings for the related risk factors and uncertainties associated with our company and then also our industry.
We have changed quite a bit. I was just talking to a gentleman before this. We were a single product company, now a multiproduct company, generating significant cash flow, significant data readouts coming in '27 and '28. As a biotech company that had been a single product company for quite some time, I can tell you, it's very nice to be able to speak to you guys today and to be able to share with you guys the story of the great things that we have going on at Neurocrine.
We're a neuroscience company focused in endocrinology, psychiatry, neurology, immunology. We're based in San Diego, California, have over 2,500 employees at this point. Half of those are in San Diego. The other half are spread across the United States, marketing our products, so we have a lot of fun. And if you ever find yourself in San Diego, would love to host you at our new campus. We have a lot of magic going on there, which you can see going into our early-stage research and development pipeline that we'll see in just a little bit. So very much looking forward to talking with you guys today.
So we have 3 pillars, just like every good presentation has to have 3 pillars. The first one is our commercial products. These are generating significant cash flow at this point, growing quite significantly. We had 45% year-over-year growth in Q1. This allows us the ability to invest in R&D, which is the lifeblood of any company within biotech. And then lastly, that's translating to very nice financial returns, where we've been generating significant cash flow, over $200 million of non-GAAP net income in Q1 alone, and we've recently deployed our cash to acquire Soleno Therapeutics, which was for $2.9 billion. It's the biggest acquisition Neurocrine has ever made, but very exciting for us.
On the commercial product side of the equation, we have INGREZZA. That was approved in 2017. That was our only approved medicine until December of 2024, but it's been the lifeblood of our company. It's allowed us to reinvest, build the company to where you see it today and our guidance range is $2.7 billion to $2.8 billion this year with INGREZZA. And that implies mid-teens underlying volume growth in a very attractive market, offset by a little bit of price pressure.
The second medicine that I mentioned earlier was CRENESSITY that's for congenital adrenal hyperplasia. That's a rare endocrine product. We launched that last year. It's been on the market for 5 quarters now. The patients had no other option other than to take high-dose steroids for their condition for their entire life. And this had $150 million of sales alone in the first quarter, and the team has done an incredible job with CRENESSITY.
Last, this is VYKAT XR. This is the one that came to us from that $2.9 billion acquisition. This is for a very rare devastating disease called Prader-Willi syndrome. It was approved in March of 2025. It's been on the market about a year at this point. And similar to CRENESSITY off to a great start, sales are around $100 million in Q1.
So when you add all 3 of these products up, over $900 million in sales in the first quarter alone. For a finance guy, this next part is important, 97% plus gross margins on these products. So you think about the cash flow that's coming from growing sales, the ability to reinvest back into research and development at a rate of 30% to 35% without sacrificing ultimate profitability is something that we've been doing, and we've created a very diversified pipeline at this point, which I'm excited to share with you guys about a bit later in the presentation.
And then lastly, financially, we did do that acquisition for Soleno, $2.9 billion. We pretty much funded that all cash and it will be immediately accretive on a non-GAAP basis to our shareholders on an EPS basis. So overall, very fortunate to be in the position that we find ourselves in today.
So let me tell you a little bit about INGREZZA, and I was talking to an individual here who actually was selling an antipsychotic early in the 60s or 70s. And unfortunately, with antipsychotic use, you have a 10% likelihood of developing a debilitating disorder called tardive dyskinesia. It shows up in the hands, mouth, the base, the trunk, and it's just an unfortunate byproduct of taking an antipsychotic.
And up until 2017, there were absolutely no treatment options for these patients. So if you think about dealing with your underlying mental health condition and then adding a movement disorder on top of that, it's not unsurprising that the stigma that comes with that isolation, the low self worth. And so it's been so rewarding since 2017 to be able to start developing this market.
We estimate that there's around 800,000 patients with tardive dyskinesia but only 2% were diagnosed in 2017 because there were no reasons to make a formal diagnosis because you couldn't do anything about it. Even if you stop the underlying antipsychotic, those movements would stay. So a lot of our effort over the last 9 years has really surrounded diagnosis. And that's one major challenge of -- I get asked all the time. Why don't you have more than 1 out of 10 on a VMAT2 inhibitor today?
It really comes down to the basics of making the diagnosis. And why might that be difficult? These patients are being seen by psychiatrists. The psychiatrists rightfully so are caring more about the patient's underlying mental health condition, working on a computer screen, not looking intently at their patients. So it's not surprising that it's not top of list for a psychiatrist. So a lot of our call frequency with our sales force is simply to put and keep tardive dyskinesia on the radar.
The second piece really has to do with the psychiatrist in getting confidence in making a movement disorder diagnosis. That's something that they're not necessarily trained on, and that's something that we help support them in getting confidence making the diagnosis. The second piece is that -- the second phenomenon is that patients who have tardive dyskinesia, they have no idea who to talk to about it. You wouldn't think about going into the psychiatrist's office and talking to your psychiatrist about a movement disorder.
I'd liken that to going into the dentist's office and asking the dentist to look at your ankle. So if you see our commercial, the INGREZZA jingle commercial on TV, just know we are trying to motivate patients to actually bring it up with the psychiatrists that, "Can I actually get help?", because if they don't bring it up, the clinician may feel like it doesn't bother them, so they're not going to spend the time to ultimately treat.
So overall, it's been quite rewarding to be able to develop the market in this way. But those two fundamental aspects still remain the same challenge in 2026 as it was in 2017, diagnosis and patient activation. So how has that translated financially?
You can see a pretty linear growth patient by patient, adding them on therapy, staying on therapy. Now we're at a place where we're at $2.7 billion to $2.8 billion in sales. And as I said at the outset, this implies the mid-teens underlying growth offset by a little bit of price. But it's very rare to see, Myles, if any other product growing at this clip 9 months or 9 years after launch. And it really comes back to -- I think I can go backwards, yes, there we go. It really goes back to the right hand of this slide.
This is what gives us confidence that growth is going to continue. There's still so many patients with tardive dyskinesia that need help, and it's been a real reward for Neurocrine to be able to help this many patients. We have IP protection that goes out till 2030. So durability of these revenues is quite strong.
Now as I said at the outset, INGREZZA, funded our company and the first product that came as a result of this funding was CRENESSITY. This is an internally advanced compound. It was called crinecerfont, now it's called CRENESSITY. This absolutely changed the game for patients with a disease called classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia. That's a mouthful, so we say CAH. But essentially, what it is, is the patient is born without the ability to produce cortisol. And without cortisol, you die. And up until 1950s, 1960s, all patients with CAH would ultimately pass away until hydrocortisone was developed. So since they can't produce the cortisol, you supplement it with synthetic cortisol, hydrocortisone and ultimately, that's been how you maintain the life of these children and then into adulthood.
There's about 20,000 patients, but you can imagine androgens being out of control, plus high-dose steroids for your entire life. That is not a good recipe for success. So we got approval in December of 2024. First in 70 years to give an option that's not a steroid to patients. And it's been just a tremendous launch thus far.
I was at a conference a few weeks ago and was asked, "Tell me why has CRENESSITY been so successful?" And I would just tell you that it's basic -- that's a three-ingredient recipe. One, your product has to absolutely meet an unmet need. Here, that was quite clear. Second, it really has to make a difference. And you can see the difference quite quickly. And what we've been hearing in the real world is that the results are at least as good as what you see in the clinical trials, if not better, on both the efficacy and safety.
And last, a patient has stay on therapy. And what we have found both from reimbursement, has been over 80% of all prescriptions are getting reimbursed, so no payer pushback and also tolerability and benefit is quite clear. Patients are staying on therapy, and it's making a difference in their life. So how does this translate to revenue?
You can see in Q1 of 2025 a year ago, we're pretty much an INGREZZA only company, and that had been the case for the previous 7 years. You then fast forward to last quarter, you can see $150 million in CRENESSITY sales, about 10% of patients with classic CAH have been treated at this point. And really, the diversification and scale in year-over-year growth is starting to look quite attractive. And for us, as a company, it's amazing, but also for patients just thinking about helping a segment of patients and in particular, kids who're taking high-dose steroids. I think we all know.
If you have had Poison Ivy, if you grew up in the Midwest like me, you start taking steroids, you want to taper off of them as quickly as you can. Think about that your lifeline for the rest of your life. This has been very nice to be able to see androgens going down and then also seeing the glucocorticoids going down.
Last comment here, which is probably the most personal comment I'd make. My son has CAH. And so when I talk about the value to patients, this was something I was working in the medical device industry and somebody reached out to me about the Neurocrine job, and I said I never heard of Neurocrine. I probably called it neurocrine, but looked at the pipeline and then I saw they were working on a medicine for my son. And so 7 years later, we got approved. He was the first commercial patient on therapy. So wanted to share that with you equally special for me.
So moving on to the next product, VYKAT XR. This came to us from the Soleno Therapeutics acquisition. This is for a devastating disorder called Prader-Willi syndrome, and I'll tell you a little bit about that syndrome here in a few minutes. But before we do that, we spent $2.9 billion of shareholder capital. So what is that -- what was the strategic rationale? The first piece is that this is our second rare endocrine product. So CRENESSITY was our first. This gives us start of a franchise here. Very similar call points. So strategically fits right into our wheelhouse commercially.
The second is it adds to both growth and the diversification mission that we've been on to build an enterprise, not just a single product company. And then lastly, this is cash flow positive from day 1, and it's going to be quite accretive in value creation for shareholders given the IP landscape here. We believe it's going to last for quite some time.
So there were really three key aspects that we needed to figure out in diligence. The first one was about the Prader-Willi's market. What was it like? Is there a significant unmet need? And that's the easiest box to the check on. Everything that we found about the PWS community was one that there's extreme need to be able to help those patients. The second question that we had to answer was the safety and efficacy aspect of VYKAT XR. Was it providing benefit? Were the safety signals consistent with what's in the label and what we've seen in clinical studies?
We talked to parents. We talked to KOLs. We talked to patients themselves. And overall, we found this as a great product helping these patients. And then lastly, the IP. I personally didn't want to buy something that was going to fall off into generic landscape in the early 2030s. This is something I wanted strategic value from. And we went through and looked at both the filed and also on published patents or published patents and unpublished patents, and we were able to get a lot of comfort around IP extending into the mid-2040s, which will become more known, publicly likely sometime later this year.
So overall, that was a strategic rationale and some of the aspects that we went through in diligence and trying to convince ourselves of VYKAT XR which is truly changing the game for patients with Prader-Willi syndrome. Prader-Willi's, I had never heard of it until we started diligencing this product. It affects about 10,000 to 12,000 patients. And it's this unrelenting obsessive food-seeking behavior. Think about your hungriest moment that you've ever been and that's how these patients are for their entire lives, and it's devastating, and it leads to a lot of disruption at the home life and the family and with the patients individually.
And this was the first approved treatment in -- ever for these patients. It's been on the market since March of 2025. So about a year now, and you have around 10% of patients who have also been helped with VYKAT XR in the first year or so of launch. So what does this do for Neurocrine?
You can look at the middle pie chart. To be able to see $250 million out of our $900 million coming from something non-INGREZZA, that's a nice picture for us. And it's not to say we don't like INGREZZA, we love INGREZZA. And we think INGREZZA is going to continue to grow into the future. But as we think about managing our business and investments and concentration risk, having two rare endocrine products in our commercial channel has been quite significant. And I think this is just the beginning.
And then lastly, you'll start seeing it accrete into our P&L over the second half of this year. And I think you'll also agree with us in understanding both the scale benefit as well as the profit profile that will come from this acquisition.
So financially, this is an easy picture to interpret. Revenue growing from $570 million last year to $815 million this year, over 40% year-over-year growth, quite significant with a big chunk of that incremental growth coming from CRENESSITY and we feel like we're just getting started with CRENESSITY, as I said earlier. On the R&D front, reinvesting around 30% to 35% back into R&D based upon the quality of the products that we have and that translates to a residual of $200 million of non-GAAP net income.
And you can see at the bottom, the $2.6 billion of cash, that's before we acquired VYKAT XR. This really reflects our core capital allocation priorities. The #1 priority and I think everybody in biotech would say this, who has a commercial product, top line revenue growth matters significantly. So we invest significantly to drive top line revenue growth. That then gets us to the second priority, which is to be able to afford funding the right R&D programs to build the company. And then our third is to use our capital to deploy towards business development in a smart way that will drive returns for our shareholders.
And I think you're seeing that play out in how we're operating our company and that allocation framework has been something we've articulated over the last 3 or 4 years. We are patient in our acquisition process. And obviously, with Soleno, I think it will only accelerate our forward growth from here.
So now let's look at this pipeline. It's pretty cool. If you would have seen a Neurocrine pipeline just 5 years ago, we would have been looking at probably 3 to 5 products. Now we have close to 20 clinical programs. So the scale sticks out to you. And this isn't reckless, this is intentional. We need scale. We need smart scale that's diversified in different approaches and we need programs that will give us data quickly to let us know if there's a there, there or if you can that program and move on to the next, and that's something that you can see showing up in our pipeline.
If you go left to right, the left is earlier, that's preclinical to clinical. We have probably 50 other programs, not on here that are preclinical that Jude and team have queued up for us. But we have to be very selective on how much we want to fund and pace it appropriately. But you can see the color. The color diversification represents different therapeutic areas that we find ourselves going into whether it's psychiatry, neurology, endocrinology or immunology and then the symbols.
The symbols reflect whether it's a small molecule or a large molecule. And you can see on the far right, which is our later stage all small molecule. On the left, being able to get into different modalities has been an important step for us. So this has been quite the journey and kudos to Jude Onyia and his team for all the value that I know are going to be created for shareholders as well as for patients.
If you go to the far right, our 2 marquee Phase III programs. The first one listed here is direclidine, which is a muscarinic agonist. If you remember the acquisition of Karuna by BMS and the product, Cobenfy. This is the same pathway. And this is a medicine that is in a Phase III trial right now and that will read out in 2027, one of the trials and then 2028 for the second trial.
In addition to that, you have osavampator, which is an AMPA potentiator. This is being studied in major depressive disorder. And this is a trial, we'll have 3 trials reading out in 2027. So if you fast forward over the next 12 to 18 months to have answers on those 2 programs and the transformation that could have for our company is quite significant.
The 1 program I called out earlier stage that gets a lot of investor interest has to do with our obesity program. It's the second one to the bottom in the Phase I. This is a CRF2 agonist. It's a different approach, and we're really looking at trying to reduce weight, but primarily in visceral fat as compared to lean muscle mass and so we'll be able to get through our Phase Ib trial in 2027. We'll have data later in the year and that we'll be able to highlight progress on that patient population, which would be a healthy overweight or healthy obese patients.
And so it does give a good directional picture as to are we seeing what we saw in animal models translating into humans. And so that will be another important milestone.
So I'll wrap it up here. Neurocrine has been on an amazing journey. And for me, personally, being part of it, going from single product to multiproduct, multiple cash flow generating assets and being able to invest in meaningful pipeline, programs, has just been very rewarding. You can see, as I said earlier, 3 commercial products, but I want you to think about the patients.
The tardive dyskinesia patient taking INGREZZA. There was never an option for those patients to get [Audio Gap] TD. Similarly with CAH, with CRENESSITY, the only option was to take high-dose steroids for their entire lives. Now you have CRENESSITY to be able to help them. Lastly, on VYKAT XR, never an approved treatment option to help patients with Prader-Willi syndrome. Now we have something to help those patients. So I think we can talk -- I can talk in numbers that this is $900 million, great gross profit to invest in the next medicine.
But we take a step back in a very proud way to think we are truly impacting the lives of patients. And that's what makes investing in life science fund or at least operating company fund. There is high risk, but there is great reward on the other end and glad I could present Neurocrine to you guys today.
Matt requested a standing ovation, so you got one person. We've got 4 minutes for you to Q&A before we break out. We'll definitely take a question from the audience to kick us off, please.
[Technical Difficulty].
So the question has to do with, would a GLP-1 help PWS patients in addition to VYKAT XR?
And so what VYKAT XR is doing is aiding the brain aspect to this, and it's not necessarily helping on the metabolic side of the equation. You're trying to give this to patients before they progress to becoming very obese or diabetic or whatnot. So over time, you could imagine, though, patients who are benefiting from VYKAT XR and their life is stable, that they would be a potential candidate to also be on a GLP-1, but that would be a medical decision. But that was one of the questions that we had is, would a GLP-1 cure PWS or help people with PWS? It would allow them to potentially manage their weight a little bit more, but not the mental obsessive unrelenting behaviors that causes most of the destruction in these patients' lives.
Maybe one on INGREZZA, just IP out to 2038, still a growing franchise. I think you painted a really nice picture of the case for organic growth with that franchise as well. Investors do bring up the competitor and the potential pricing restructure that might go on in 2027 for that product. How does that sort of factor into your long-term growth potential of INGREZZA?
I think regardless of how you skin this. This market is all -- this is going to be driven by volume. How many more patients can you actually be treating with the VMAT2 inhibitor between ourselves and our competitor. So that's number one. I think volume is going to continue to be strong for quite some time. There will be some price pressure as you go through the Inflation Reduction Act, in particular, for us. We will be more than likely selected for negotiation in 2027.
And then that price would take effect in 2029. Fortunately, for us, we know the outcome of that price because we have a small biotech exemption that's going to be between 25% and 34% price impact. And so there will be price pressure in 2029 but still a very durable revenue stream that would continue on from there.
On the competitive front in 2027, our competitor's price kicks in from the government. They've already been negotiated. Our product is pretty closely priced to theirs after their MFP. So right now, we're the lower priced product in the market. And so I think we'll be much closer to parity at that point. So I think any price that we would have to get to stay on formulary and to maintain access would be expected to be very manageable and modest.
And just a very quick one on capital allocation. I think you mentioned multiple times here at the presentation, 30% to 35% back into R&D. You're a company that's generating $750 million to $1 billion in free cash flow and theoretically, that is growing substantially. What about inorganic versus organic R&D? Are we expecting more Soleno like deals or maybe hands in pocket for the time being?
Well, my hands were literally in my pocket. But I think the good part is for Neurocrine right now, we have so much growth on the top line and so much in the pipeline, we don't feel a burning need to go and do something. With that said, we do have the capital flexibility if we wanted to do something. But we like to set up right now with 3 growing products, a pipeline with meaningful catalysts over the next 12 to 18 months. But if the right opportunity did present itself, it's up to us to look at it to determine can we drive shareholder value with doing that acquisition.
But -- sorry, last piece. To be a successful biopharma company, you have to do both. I think if you aren't pursuing anything internally, you're going to miss out and vice versa. And that's been part of the journey of building our pipeline over the last couple of years with Jude Onyia and team a real investment in our early-stage R&D development.
Well said. Thanks very much for joining us today, Matt and Todd here as well. The breakout session will be in Jenny B upstairs. Thanks very much.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — 46th Annual William Blair Growth Stock Conference
Neurocrine pitched a shift from single‑product to a diversified, cash‑generating biotech with recent rare‑disease launches and multiple near‑term clinical readouts.
🎯 Key Message
- Takeaway: Company moved from one approved drug to three commercial products, generating strong cash flow to fund R&D and M&A while building a ~20‑program clinical pipeline across endocrinology, psychiatry, neurology and immunology.
⚡ Strategic Highlights
- Commercial mix: INGREZZA remains the core growth engine; CRENESSITY (congenital adrenal hyperplasia) and VYKAT XR (Prader‑Willi syndrome) are recent launches diversifying revenue.
- Acquisition: $2.9B cash purchase of Soleno (VYKAT XR) is immediately non‑GAAP EPS accretive and strengthens rare‑endocrine franchise.
- Capital use: >97% gross margins enable 30–35% of revenue reinvestment into R&D while retaining capacity for opportunistic M&A.
🔭 New Information
- Commercial performance: Q1 combined sales from the three products exceeded $900M; INGREZZA guidance reiterated at $2.7B–$2.8B for the year.
- IP & launch: VYKAT XR approved March 2025; management cites patent/IP comfort into the mid‑2040s (details to be disclosed later).
- Catalysts: Two marquee Phase III readouts (muscarinic program) in 2027/2028, three osavampator trials in 2027, and a CRF2 obesity Phase Ib data readout in 2027.
❓ Analyst Q&A
- GLP‑1 & PWS: GLP‑1s may help weight in Prader‑Willi syndrome but won’t address the obsessive food‑seeking behavior VYKAT XR targets; combination would be a medical decision.
- INGREZZA pricing/IP: IRA negotiation likely in 2027 with negotiated price effects in 2029; company expects a 25–34% price impact under the small‑biotech exemption but views volume growth as primary driver.
- Capital allocation: NSF retains strong free‑cash‑flow, prioritizes organic growth and R&D but remains open to disciplined acquisitions when value‑creating.
⚡ Bottom Line
- Implication: Neurocrine has materially de‑risked concentration risk with two new rare‑disease launches and an accretive acquisition while funding an expanded pipeline; near‑term data in 2027–2028 are potential value inflection points, but execution, regulatory outcomes and expected IRA pricing pressure remain key risks.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Bank of America Global Healthcare Conference 2026
1. Question Answer
Biotech Analyst at the bank. It's my pleasure to have with me our next presenting company, Neurocrine. Sitting up here on stage, there are a couple of familiar faces, Matt Abernethy, who is, of course, Chief Financial Officer; as well as Todd Tushla. Your job again, sir?
I'm the current Vice President of Investor Relations.
Okay. Just wanted to clarify.
He did tell me this is his new title from you this morning, your favorite person. Can you confirm that?
Yes. I did say that. I did in fact say that. We'll put that on your card.
Thank you.
So maybe, Matt, for the few people who aren't as familiar with the company, can you just give us a quick overview of Neurocrine and then we can go into some of the more recent updates that have been happening?
Sure. We are going to be making forward-looking statements, as you can imagine. So check out the latest SEC filings. I'm sure you're excited about that update. But I was reflecting coming out here, Tazeen 8.5 years ago, I joined Neurocrine. In our first conversation, I remember it because you've got a good perspective on things. And if I recall, the conversation was all around elagolix and a little bit around INGREZZA.
And so when you fast forward over the last 8.5 years now, we sit here in a tremendous position. And for me personally, I feel like it's quite fortunate position to be in as a company. There's really 3 attributes that every company is striving for, especially when you're in mid-cap, how do you get from mid-cap to higher mid-cap to large cap, you're really looking at your commercial franchise, first and foremost, do you have durable revenue that's going to continue to grow and deliver.
We have INGREZZA that was actually approved when we first talked, I think, in 2017. It's been on the market for quite some time now. It's for an involuntary movement disorder caused by prolonged exposure to antipsychotics. And unfortunately, they could be hand movements, face movements, trunk movements and up until 2017, there were no available treatment options, as you know. And we continue to surprise to the upside, guidance.
Very recently.
Yes. Guidance this year is $2.7 billion to $2.8 billion. LOE is 2038, and we still have a lot of opportunity left there. The second major product that we have is actually CRENESSITY, which was approved in December of 2024, and that was for classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia. It was the first medicine in over 70 years approved for CAH patients.
And the launch has gone great so far and continues, like you said, surprised to the upside. And I think it's a reflection of just the great unmet need in the marketplace as well as a drug that is working and working well. We have a little bit over 10% of patients on therapy within the first 5 quarters. And last in Q1, we had over $150 million in sales.
And then the third product, which is going to be new for Neurocrine is called VYKAT XR. We have an announced acquisition of Soleno Therapeutics. I'm not going to be able to speak much about it today because it is in its tender offer period. But when you think about a medicine that was approved last April, it's a rare endocrine product similar to CRENESSITY, and they've had a great first 4 quarters of launch, $95 million of sales in Q1.
And so when you aggregate all 3 of these products together, you get to over $900 million of sales in Q1 alone. So the scale of the company is growing, and we would expect it to continue to grow over the future. On the pipeline side, we have close to 20 clinical stage pipeline programs at this point.
And I know people always ask me to choose my favorite kids. And I typically choose kids is my favorite. The 2 lead programs are the Phase III programs. One is osavampato major depressive disorder that reads out in 2027. And then also direclidine, which is a muscarinic agonist that's being studied in schizophrenia that will also read out in 2027 and 2028. Of those 2, my favorite is osavampato for a variety of reasons, which we can get into, if you'd like later.
And then on the early stage, we actually just announced entering the clinic with 2118, our CRF2 agonist, and that's being studied in obesity. And that data in healthy obese people will be read out in late 2027 as well. So -- and then the last piece, the third piece, you got your commercial, you got your pipeline. And then last piece is financials. We've been able to drive significant top line revenue. Profitability is flowing quite well right now.
We had $200 million of non-GAAP net income in the quarter, and we would continue to expect that to grow, while at the same time, prioritizing investment in R&D at a rate of 30% to 35%. So that's a mouthful for the company, but we have a lot going on, a lot to be proud of and as you said, Q1 was quite good.
Okay. So nobody can see us because we don't have video, but you can filing the whole time. So I'm going to take that as a sign that you're pleased with the way things are going so far this year. Let's just do one question on Soleno. I know you're limited on what you can say. But how does it sort of fit in sort of with the other drug launches that you guys are doing?
Obviously, you've demonstrated the ability to have outsized launches and you're taking over someone else's launch here. But what was it, I guess, that you thought would be particularly synergistic?
Well, these are both products between VYKAT XR and CRENESSITY are both rare endocrine products. So as we look in our portfolio and pipeline over the future, we would expect to have a full business around the segment. And there's a lot of valuable synergies from the sales side, not necessarily focused on the cost side right now.
But to be able to go into these clinicians and be able to share about CRENESSITY and also then have another sales force being able to share about VYKAT XR, it was something that was a great strategic fit for us.
The team is quite motivated. They care a lot about the Prader-Willi syndrome patients, a lot of talented people. So we're looking forward to getting this close, and we'll be able to provide more color once we get that behind us. But it is going to be a durable asset for us that goes into the 2040s from an IT perspective, and it's a great strategic fit.
And it's not because Eric doesn't have enough.
Eric is very good at developing markets in rare disease. He would say that the #1 most difficult market he's ever seen or underdeveloped market is actually tardive dyskinesia. Because when you think about nobody being diagnosed in that marketplace, it's something that has taken a lot of effort to get from diagnosis all the way to a prescription being written.
The good thing about the Prader-Willi syndrome is that there is a specific ICD code that allows you to know who the patients are, where they are at. That differs from CRENESSITY and that there isn't a specific classic CAH code. So I think there's some good things that come from a medicine like this for VYKAT. But both VYKAT, TD and CRENESSITY, there's no approved -- there was no approved other medications for these patients prior to the launch of these 3 medicines. So it's going to be quite special in our hands.
Okay. Great. So on the topic of INGREZZA, what quarter of the launch is it now?
We're 9 years in.
9 years in.
9 years in.
So with 9 years in, you still managed to beat expectations on 1Q sales. So can you talk to us about where you think the unmet demand is and how we should generally think about what to expect on uptake, not just for the rest of the year, but for the couple -- next couple of years?
Yes. I would just give another kudos to our sales team and our medical team to be able to get record numbers of new patients in the first quarter, when the first quarter is typically challenged the seasonality is a testament to the work that they did, but it's also a reflection of how many people with tardive dyskinesia continue to need help.
It's debilitating to take an antipsychotic for your mental health. Get your mental health in check and then ultimately develop a movement. And that movement, even if you remove the antipsychotic, it still stays there. So the big basic blocking and tackling that we have underway, it's going to sound boring because it's the exact same thing we've been doing for quite some period of time.
It's really ensuring that HCP is aware and thinking about tardive dyskinesia. These prescribers are primarily psychiatrists and they're thinking about the underlying mental health condition of the patient, not necessarily thinking about tardive dyskinesia. So we see the more the call frequency is or the higher the call frequency, the more likely a clinician is to see the TD and to prescribe INGREZZA. And that's what we're seeing so far. So that's like one basic blocking and tackling item.
The second is the direct-to-consumer advertising in that we know patients have these movements. They may not know what they're from, and they're definitely not thinking about talking to their psychiatrists about a movement disorder. That would be like asking a dentist to look at your ankle that just doesn't happen.
So we have direct-to-consumer advertising campaigns that are putting a name to this movement and encouraging them to talk to their doctor about whether INGREZZA could help them. So a lot of room left to go. Around 50% of the market has been diagnosed at this point. Only 1 in 10 patients with tardive dyskinesia are currently on a VMAT2 inhibitor. So still a lot of room for growth ahead.
So there was a lot of discussion towards the second half of last year on a couple of items. First, the competitor gaining share? And then secondly, what type of negotiation you have to make with payers in order to have coverage. So when do we start to hear, I guess, on the second point about how your discussions for 2027 are going?
Yes. Once we get closer to 2027, we, of course, expect our product to be -- have strong access still. It's a great product in a great market. And I think from a pricing perspective, we're competitively priced relative to AUSTEDO XR. So I would expect access to be strong. The specifics around it, we'll be able to give more color as we get later in the year.
But to the previous question about Teva or AUSTEDO gaining share. If you rewind back to 2024, we hit a period in the second half of that year, where new patient additions were slowing. And at that point, we're accelerating and not just in prescriptions, but then also in revenue dollars because of their titration schedule. And so last year, we also had a sales force expansion. We had record numbers of new patients in Q2, Q3 and then flattish in Q4. And through that period of time, we actually gained 2 share points back.
And so we feel quite good on a TRx on a market basis, but we're in a sort of gain share mode right now, and that's quite attractive. When you think about how is the market doing right now because their results are a little bit difficult to interpret because of their inventory fluctuations and also their pricing schema. But I think we would both agree that the market right now from a TRx perspective is growing in the low to mid-teens, and that's quite strong years.
I had brought up the question about 2027 because last year, you said that you had started negotiations a little bit earlier than you normally would for 2026. So I think people remember that, and they'll be thinking about when you start talking about it only because people want to...
Yes, I think there was an element of that, that we brought it up because the plans were asking for us to have an incremental discount in the current year that we were at, which was unusual. But the trade-off was more just to go from 45% covered Medicare Part D to 70% and you're seeing that flow through with the new patient starts.
So we would not expect to add any other lives on from -- in terms of our coverage status for 2026. We like where we're at around 70%. And we'd expect similar levels as we look ahead.
So maybe let's move on to CRENESSITY. So that's also had an outsized launch. And can you just talk about the dynamics there? Obviously, a much newer launch than INGREZZA, it's also a more, I guess, technically smaller opportunity for disease. So what are the differences in how the commercial team is looking into gaining share there versus what needed to be done for INGREZZA?
Yes. There's really 3 things that it takes to have a successful drug launch. One is there has to be a high unmet need. The second is the drug actually has to work. And then the third, there has to be a level of tolerability that allows them to stay on therapy, and we're checking the box on all 3.
There's never been an improved medicine outside of high-dose hydrocortisone for these patients with classic CAH until CRENESSITY was approved. And I think what we can see both in our clinical data as well as our open-label extension data that we continue to put out, the benefit is significant to these patients.
The second piece is, I think, anecdotally, we hear feedback that the medicine is working at least as good as what was in the clinical trials, if not better. And my anecdotal experience with my own son on CRENESSITY is it's much better than what was shown in the clinical trials. And so it's been quite a benefit for him and my family.
And then the third piece is that the tolerability side of the equation. It seems as if patients are staying on therapy. And right now, from a persistency and compliance perspective, it mirrors or looks very similar to what we saw in the open-label extension study, which is over 80%.
So we had done a survey before the quarter, and it indicated everything that you just mentioned. As you had indicated, you've now moved away from providing, let's say, script numbers. Intra-quarter, how reliable though, do you think it is to be looking at the vendors that provide scripts?
Well, first of all, I would caution when you have very low numbers, it can be skewed a lot. And I think many weeks where I would see those numbers being quoted externally, it wouldn't align with what we're seeing internally. So I don't know much about the data sources. I also had people talking about patients not being reauthorized on therapy and getting insurance claim data. We've not seen anything like that. So I would caution you on over reliance on some of the third-party data. Maybe at some point, it will get more accurate. But right now, it just -- it wouldn't be something that I would recommend.
Now as it relates to Q1 performance, last year, as we went from Q2 to Q3 to Q4, we had the steady step down of a number of enrollments, which were quite significant, but they were a trend down from 600 to 500 to 400. And I think there is a concern that we've passed out the market, everybody who wanted it at the KOL got it, and now it's going to be quite low.
And what we saw from Q4 to Q1 is very consistent enrollment forms from what we saw in Q4. And I think as those new patients continue to roll on medicine and by and large, many of the patients are staying on therapy, there's a compounding benefit that we would expect to continue.
And just as a reminder, there isn't the same seasonality for CRENESSITY as service trend also, right? -- for 1Q?
That's right. There is on the gross to net side, an element where the commercial patients have their co-pay resets and then we cover that. But in terms of reauthorization because 70% of these patients are commercial, they go through their reauthorization that's more mirrored to how long their plan had approved them to be able to continue to get CRENESSITY.
Typically, we see a 6-month initial cycle and then a 12-month approval thereafter. And we've not seen anything that would lend itself to thinking that reimbursement would become more challenging. That's been one of the upsides in the early stages of launch is that we've had over 80% of our TRxs are actually reimbursed -- and it's a testament to our specialty pharmacy PANTHERx they do a great job with this and then also our field payer team. And I think there's also an awareness of the impact of CAH in high-dose steroids on patients that cause the plans to cover...
What is in terms of sales...
It's growing every quarter.
It's probably now 1.3 million, 1.4 million in ZIP code.
And so how does that kind of compare to the market and the research that you guys have done?
We've clearly said that this could be a blockbuster medicine. And I think that it tees itself up given the price point. If you do get to the range of rare disease launches, if you look at what could peak penetration be for a medicine that's chronic medicine that's treating more or less the symptoms or controlling the underlying disease itself, you see a range of 30% to 50% overall adoption within the marketplace.
So I think if we ever get into that level of ZIP code of 30% to 50%, I think that you can see your way to some fairly large numbers that you're referring to. And I think that's really up to us and the clinician community to continue to help as many PAH patients as possible.
Let me tack on that the patent goes into the -- so looking at the commercial base of business that we have or we'll soon have is this just got a durable commercial revenue stream.
Yes. So I think our first peak sales number for INGREZZA in like $1 billion and some people thought that was too high. So it is a bit of a tradition that people...
INGREZZA is still trying to find its peak.
Yes. So on the point of like having a long runway, how do you see the competitive landscape evolving in the next several years?
Well, I do think going back to the runway piece, the past the peak is much quicker in a rare disease medicine like this as compared to -- we're still 9 years in for INGREZZA. I think it's about a 5-year period of time. So you think about the progress that we can make between the time we launch to that 5-year mark relative to competition, I think we're going to have a very dominant position in the marketplace.
So as we look at any competition, it's going to have to cross a very high bar to get patients to switch therapy, let alone disrupt the standard of care. So we, of course, keep an eye on competition. But when you have a medicine that's working, a medicine that's safe and data that supports your claims that are going to multiple years, multiple patient lives ahead of competition, we like that position.
And it's setting a high bar, not just for competition, but also for our own internally developed molecules that we're trying to pick the next generation like 1435 is the name of the product. So could not see across efficacy, safety and tolerability has given us something to go forward, but it's not going to be easy to beat it.
Okay. So let's talk about other aspects of the pipeline. So 2027 is going to be a big year for pipeline for Neurocrine.
It's going to be the first of many data-rich years for the company, the way the pipeline is set up.
Yes. So maybe let's start with urocortin. How are you thinking about -- well, remind us when that Phase III is.
Yes. So this is a selective M4 agonist that differs from Cobenfy, which Bristol has, which is a combination of a pan muscarinic agonist and a peripheral antagonist and different than emraclidine, which is a positive allosteric modulator and requires endogenous acetylcholine to work. So this is a first-in-class, best-in-class approach.
The Phase III studies for schizophrenia are enrolling. I was just texting Samir. He's got a site visit, making sure that we're conducting well-run trials. There's 2 main studies in schizophrenia. The first one is set out to read out in 2027. The second one in 2028. And we also have a program in bipolar mania for the same drug in Phase II.
So the 2 Phase III studies, the first one that's going to read out next year, how much of a read-through would it be for the one in 2028?
For schizophrenia, the way the trial is typically designed, you need to win on 1 out of 2. So we'll see.
Yes. But in Psych, it's always difficult to predict the outcome. And so that's why companies like ourselves, even if the regulatory guidance says that you only need one positive, which here, I think, combined with the Phase II and all the safety data we have with direclidine, I think one would be sufficient.
So you would still as a company want to run 2 because there are so many dynamics at play in terms of trial quality and clinical site quality. So we'll see. But we like the setup. We like what we think that the muscarinics can bring to the class of medicine for psychiatry, one that's safe, tolerable, easy to use, that's going to be one that we're going to look forward to launching.
One question about FDA interactions. It does look like there's going to continue to be some staffing changes there. Does that impact any of the conversations that you're having?
No. I think actually, the FDA has been quite positive and productive on all of our programs and even had some recent correspondence as of last week on our Friedreich's Ataxia program that was quite positive.
So I wouldn't foresee there to be much disruption. But of course, instability brings opportunity or moments of crisis. And I think that's something that all of us in the industry are getting used to it at this point. So it's always disappointing to see change, but I think we're resilient, and we'll be able to manage through.
Okay. And then let's maybe talk about osavampator since Matt, you mentioned it's one of your favorites. So why are you excited about that?
Well, first of all, I think the efficacy in Phase II was significant. And osavampator for those who aren't as familiar as an AMPA potentiator and it is a mechanism that many people have tried to explore in the past, but nobody has been able to drug it without causing some side effects. And thankfully, our partner, Takeda, developed this medicine tremendously well, and we're testing this in adjunctive therapy for major depressive disorder.
And so this is a significant unmet need, needs new mechanisms beyond D2. And I think that this has an opportunity to do that. So #1, on the efficacy front, we had 2 doses, both doses worked, 1 milligram and 3 milligram. 1 milligram worked a little bit better than the 3 milligram. And so we, from a risk reward perspective, chose the lower dose, and we've taken that lower dose into -- we have 3 active Phase III trials. We have one randomized withdrawal study, and then we also have an open-label extension study.
So a lot going on behind osavampator. So why am I excited beyond the efficacy financially, you get to a major market quickly. And I think this major market, if you have a new mechanism and people are -- and it's safe, I think it's something that people will be trying quite quickly and with the goal of being second line.
So our team is up for the challenge to get this enrolled and to get quality data, and then we'll see where we take it from there. But it could be quite transformative in a quick period of time for the company within our psych franchise. So we have the rare endocrine franchise that we talked about. We also have our INGREZZA psych franchise, and that's how the company is developing right now.
You also have obesity. So your focus on that seems to have evolved. I think initially, you started talking about metabolic disorders.
It had it coming on party in December, R&D Day.
I went to obesity at Jason and now we're full on obesity. So why does it make sense? I guess similar question to what we have been talking about with CRENESSITY. How do you see the competitive landscape evolving there because it does seem like there's going to be a lot of options for folks...
I think there's going to be a lot of options in terms of mechanism, in terms of administration, in terms of the frequency of how often you take it. So there's going to be a lot of opportunities for others to play in this space. There is a new mechanism that we're exploring CRF2 agonist. This is obviously using the heritage that we have on the CRF pathway from when we were, I guess, born by Kevin Gorman. We were talking about Kevin earlier today.
But I do think that this is a natural evolution to be able to look at the other side of CRF. And we also hired an expert team. Jude Onyia, our Chief Scientific Officer, led large molecules at Lilly. And we also have a handful of others who are experts in some of the other obesity assets.
So I think that it makes sense because of our core capability, also the market, there are pockets of need. And this is likely something that will be combined with our own proprietary GGG over time that will give it even more potency. So our view is let's explore it.
Financially, it's not a big investment to get to Phase I data. And actually, in Phase I data, it can inform what your Phase II or Phase III data might end up looking like as compared to sites is much more risky. And you really don't know until you get through a Phase III obesity, you can get a quick read within your Phase I trials for a little amount of money and then you can figure out strategically where you take it from there.
So I'm proud of the team and what they've been able to develop. I'm still personally getting up to speed on the obesity space because there's so much going on. It could be a full-time job to keep up on everything. But we do like the exploration of this pathway, and I'd personally like to know we're going to have data next year that will tell us if there's a there, there.
Okay. And then last question. I think people were waiting for years and years for you guys to decide what you were going to buy. And so now you've bought Soleno or buying Soleno. What is your thought about business development in the nearer term now that this is going to be integrated?
Well, this is one that we can handle financially with our cash on hand and it is also EBITDA accretive immediately and non-GAAP EPS accretive immediately. So from a financial position, you could practically still do some M&A. But for us, our focus is going to be on integrating that, integrating it very well, reestablishing our cash position. And then if the right acquisition is out there, we'll, of course, look carefully at it.
But when you think about INGREZZA, CRENESSITY, VYKAT, [indiscernible], direclidine, obesity, we have a lot on our plate right now, and it's not a necessity that we do anything. But I'm personally so thankful we're able to come to an agreement with Soleno, provides a great foundation combined with INGREZZA and CRENESSITY for us to grow off of for many years ahead.
Okay. With that, we're out of time. Thanks, Todd. From San Diego, and thanks, everybody, for joining.
Thank you.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Bank of America Global Healthcare Conference 2026
Neurocrine framed a commercial beat and profitable quarter, a rare‑endocrine acquisition, and multiple late‑stage psychiatric and obesity readouts in 2027–28.
🎯 Key Message
- Summary: The company is trading off three commercial franchises—INGREZZA (tardive dyskinesia, a VMAT2 inhibitor), CRENESSITY (classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia), and VYKAT XR (rare endocrine, Prader‑Willi via Soleno deal)—while funding ~20 clinical programs and keeping profitability with meaningful R&D reinvestment.
⚡ Strategic Highlights
- Rare endocrine: Soleno acquisition (tender offer period) builds a focused rare‑endocrine commercial platform to sell CRENESSITY and VYKAT XR through shared clinician relationships and sales force synergies.
- Commercial playbook: INGREZZA growth driven by territory call frequency and direct‑to‑consumer awareness; management sees continued diagnosis and low current VMAT2 penetration as runway.
- Pipeline focus: Near‑term readouts include osavampator (AMPA potentiator for major depressive disorder) and direclidine (muscarinic agonist for schizophrenia) in 2027–28; CRF2 agonist 2118 entered clinic for obesity.
🆕 New Information
- Results & guidance: Management cited Q1 aggregate sales >$900M (CRENESSITY >$150M; VYKAT XR ~$95M) and reiterated full‑year revenue guidance of $2.7–$2.8B; reported $200M non‑GAAP net income and plans to reinvest 30–35% of revenue in R&D.
❓ Analyst Q&A
- Soleno fit: Synergies are commercial (shared rare‑endocrine HCP outreach) rather than immediate cost cuts; asset viewed as durable into the 2040s.
- Payer/access: INGREZZA Medicare Part D coverage ~70%; management expects stable access going into 2026 and competitive pricing versus AUSTEDO XR.
- Launch dynamics: CRENESSITY showing >80% persistency and strong reimbursement via specialty pharmacy; management cautioned against over‑reliance on third‑party script trackers for early launches.
📌 Bottom Line
- Takeaway: Neurocrine combines strong cash‑generating franchises and immediate profitability with a rich pipeline and small M&A bolt‑on; key near‑term risks remain payer negotiations, competitive share dynamics, and pivotal trial outcomes in 2027–28.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Q1 2026 Earnings Call
1. Management Discussion
Hello, and welcome, everyone joining today's Neurocrine Biosciences' Q1 2026 Earnings Call. [Operator Instructions] Please note, this call is being recorded. We are standing by if you should need any assistance. It is now my pleasure to turn the meeting over to Todd Tushla, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.
Thank you, and happy Cinco to mile to everyone. Welcome to Neurocrine Biosciences First Quarter 2026 Earnings Call. Joining me today are Kyle Gano, Chief Executive Officer; Matt Abernethy, Chief Financial Officer; Eric Benevich, Chief Commercial Officer; Sanjay Keswani, Chief Medical Officer; and Samir Sadanti, Vice President of Strategy and Corporate Development.
During today's call, we will be making forward-looking statements, including statements containing projections regarding future events such as the anticipated closing of our acquisition of Sileno Therapeutics. These statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties, and our actual results may differ materially. I encourage you to review the risk factors discussed in our latest SEC filings. In addition, some of the information discussed today includes non-GAAP financial measures that have not been calculated in accordance with U.S. GAAP. Reconciliations of these non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures are presented at the tables at the end of our earnings release issued earlier today, which has been posted on the Investor Relations page of the company's website. Following prepared remarks, we will address your questions.
With that, I'll hand the call off to Kyle.
Thanks, Todd. Good afternoon, everyone. Over the past several years, we've articulated a clear vision to become a leading biopharmaceutical company driven by growing and diversifying our revenue base while advancing and expanding our pipeline. Our first quarter performance reflects meaningful progress along that path. For the first time in Neurocrine's history, quarterly net product sales exceeded $800 million, representing 44% year-over-year growth. These outstanding results were primarily driven by INGREZZA, now in its ninth year since launch and continue to grow at a double-digit rate.
With INGREZZA guidance reaffirmed at $2.7 billion to $2.8 billion, Krenesninow annualizing at over $600 million per year and the pending addition of ICAT XR to our commercial portfolio, we are well positioned to deliver record net product sales in 2026. Regarding VCAT XR and the pending acquisition of Celeno Therapeutics, we will be limited in our ability to address questions a day given the ongoing tender offer. The acquisition remains on track to close in the second quarter.
That said, we've been impressed by the line team's accomplishments in delivering strong clinical results in a complex disease enabling broad utilization with a simple label and overseeing a strong launch of ICAT XR. We look forward to formally welcoming them to the Neurocrine team shortly. Together, we will remain focused on ensuring a seamless integration with a singular goal of serving patients with Potter Wiley syndrome in the United States. Beyond strengthening our commercial portfolio, we continue to invest in our R&D engine across neurology, psychiatry, endocrinology and immunology. Our pipeline progress is evident by our plan for 6 new Phase I and 4 new Phase II programs this year alone.
In 2027, we will report key data readouts for rosedapador, major depressive disorder, directed in schizophrenia and MBIP-2118 in obesity, just to name a few. When you combine the durability and remaining growth opportunity for our commercial assets, our innovative R&D engine and our strengthening financial profile, Neurocrine is uniquely positioned to deliver sustained value for both patients and shareholders. enterprise-wide momentum has never been stronger, and we're just getting started.
With that, I'll turn the call over to Matt.
Thank you, Kyle, and good afternoon, everyone. First, congratulations to our commercial and medical teams on an outstanding quarter. we delivered more than $800 million in total revenue with over 40% year-over-year growth. Importantly, for both INGREZZA and Cronecity, this performance reflects strong underlying demand and the meaningful impact we are having on patients' lives. Starting with INGREZZA. First quarter 2026 sales were $657 million, up 20% year-over-year. driven by double-digit volume growth and record new patient additions. When adjusting for 1 less order week in Q1 2025, growth was approximately 11%.
We are encouraged by the strength of the business exiting Q1 and are reaffirming our 2026 INGREZZA guidance of $2.7 billion to $2.8 billion. Consistent with our historical approach, we will revisit guidance following the first half of the year. Turning to Cronecity. First quarter 2026 sales were $153 million driven by strong persistency and consistent new patient enrollment forms compared to Q4. We continue to see broad prescriber adoption and favorable reimbursement dynamics.
As anticipated, we saw some slight gross to net pressure in Q1 due to commercial co-pay resets. As we look ahead, we remain very encouraged by what we're seeing and continue to believe Pranesity is well positioned to become a blockbuster medicine. Our revenue performance continues to support R&D investment while expanding profitability. During the first quarter, we generated around $200 million of net income on a GAAP and non-GAAP basis, respectively, reflecting strong operating execution.
On a GAAP basis, these results included gains related to equity investments and the sale of the diurnal business. On a non-GAAP basis, these results include $44 million in milestone expense into IP R&D. As you model operating expenses for the rest of the year, the full impact of the commercial expansion will be seen starting in the second quarter. So stepping back, INGREZZA and Kronesity together provide a growing commercial foundation, generating durable cash flows that enable continued investment in innovation and strategic business development opportunities.
This aligns directly with our capital allocation priorities and number one, drive revenue growth; number 2, advance our pipeline; and three, invest in business development. Regarding the announced acquisition of Sileno and Vicat XR, we are excited to add this asset to our portfolio and strengthen our long-term growth profile. We are not providing financial guidance related to the transaction at this time and will limit commentary during Q&A. Assuming a second quarter close, we expect to provide additional financial details on our Q2 earnings call. Overall, the first quarter reflects strong momentum across both our commercial portfolio and pipeline. with multiple key data readouts expected over the next 18 months, including Osabampator, direcadine and our CRF2-obesity program.
With that, I will hand the call over to Eric Benevich, our Chief Commercial Officer. Eric?
Thanks, Matt. May 1 marked the 9-year anniversary of the INGREZZA launch. It's remarkable that now 9 years post FDA approval and launch, we continue to deliver record new patient starts. This is a testament to both our commercial execution and the high unmet need of the tardive dyskinesia community. Our ongoing investments in the sales force, marketing initiatives, including DTC and improved formulary access are clearly driving strong results. I want to acknowledge our commercial and medical teams who continue to make a meaningful difference for patients to relieve the burden of tardive dyskinesia or Korea associated with Huntington's disease.
While proud of these achievements, we're even more encouraged by the significant opportunity that remains. Approximately 90% of the estimated 800,000 TD patients in the U.S. are currently not receiving standard of care first-line treatment with a VMAT2 inhibitor like INGREZZA. With continued rapid growth in antipsychotic utilization, the prevalence of tardive dyskinesia is expected to rise over time at a rate exceeding U.S. population growth. With an increased base of psychiatric health care providers to call on for our recently expanded sales force, we anticipate these tailwinds to support strong demand and sales through the back half of the year.
Before I wrap up my comments on INGREZZA, I'd like to remind everyone that May is mental health awareness month. And this week, in particular, is TD Awareness Week, what we affectionately refer to as TDA around here. This is an important week we circle on our calendar each year where we partner with key patient advocacy organizations in mental health along with state and local governments across the country to raise awareness and to deliver hope to the many thousands of people needlessly suffering from TD.
Now turning to chronocity, the strong momentum from 2025, the first year of our commercial launch carried over into our Q1 2026 performance. The Cronecity launch continues to progress extremely well with steady new patient starts, high persistency and compliance rates and favorable reimbursement consistent with the trends we observed in the fourth quarter of 2025. Importantly, we are seeing growing trial and adoption across all prescriber segments, including CAH Centers of Excellence, pediatric endocrinologists and community adult endocrinologists.
Through Q1, we've seen over 1,200 health care providers prescribe Croesity. Adoption remains balanced across both pediatric and adult populations as well as between female and male patients. With a modest ongoing skew towards pediatrics and females consistent with prior trends. As Sanjay will discuss in more detail, we continue to generate compelling long-term efficacy, safety and tolerability data that further reinforces the value proposition and Cronesiti's emerging position as the standard of care treatment together with low-dose GCs for patients with classic CAH. With sales now annualizing at greater than $600 million, Cronesity is well on its way to achieving blockbuster status.
So with that, I'll turn the call over to Dr. Sanjay Keswani, our Chief Medical Officer, to discuss progress with our exciting clinical pipeline.
Thanks, Eric, and good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to begin with highlights from 2 recent scientific conferences. Firstly, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology 2026 Annual Meeting in Las Vegas. At this meeting, we presented new 2-year Conect data from the Phase III CATALYST adult study, demonstrating sustained and substantial reductions in glucocorticoid doses in adults with classic congenital adrenal hypoplasia. Approximately 70% of patients achieved glucocorticoid doses within the physiological range without compromising antigen control.
Indeed, a similar proportion of patients, i.e., 70% sustainably achieved normal levels of androgens. These 2-year findings demonstrated that Cronesti provided durable androgen control while enabling meaningful reductions in glucorticoid exposure. resulting in positive impacts on bone health, bone aging, hercutism, acne, wait and insulin resistance. Importantly, these benefits were sustained over time with greater than 80% study retention and no new safety or tolerability signals were observed.
Collectively, these findings support Cronecity as a long-term treatment option that meaningfully advances the standard of care for people living with classic CAH. We look forward to providing additional 2-year data across a broader set of clinical endpoints and outcomes at upcoming medical meetings, including Endo 2026 in June. Also in April, at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy 2026 Annual Meeting, we presented the first real-world head-to-head claims data comparing INGREZZA to deuterated tetrabenazine. These data demonstrated greater treatment persistence with INGREZZA capsules including higher rates of long-term treatment continuation and lower rates of switching between medications among adults with tadive dyskinesia.
Importantly, this higher persistence with INGREZZA was observed early in treatment and sustained over a 6-month follow-up period. As a first real-world comparison of its kind, these findings provide meaningful evidence to inform decisions in clinical practice and further reinforce INGREZZA's differentiated profile.
Turning to our clinical portfolio. Our focus this year is on building and advancing the pipeline. We've initiated 3 Phase II studies, all of which are currently enrolling. These include NBI890, our next-generation VMAT2 follow-on in tidalyskinesia, directed our selective M4 muscarinic agonist in bipolamania; and NBI-570 our selective dual M1 and M4 muscarinic agonist in schizophrenia. Our fourth Phase II study will be for crinecerfont in patients under 4 years of age with classic CAH. This study is on track for initiation in the coming months.
In addition, we currently have a total of 9 Phase I programs underway, including NBIP2118, a corticotropin-releasing factor type II receptor peptide agonist or obesity with top line data expected in 2027. We plan to initiate 4 additional Phase I studies in 2026, including NBIP-1968, our proprietary GGG agonist in combination with NBIP-2018 for obesity. NBIB-223, our gene therapy program for Friedreich's ataxia and NBI188, our CRF1 antagonist for an indication in women's health. This strong pipeline momentum in 2026 positions Neurocrine for multiple significant data catalysts in 2027, including top line Phase III readouts for Osabapator in major depressive disorder and the first Phase III study of direction schizophrenia, with a second Phase III study readout anticipated the following year.
In summary, our execution in 2026 is focused on advancing a broad and diversified pipeline setting the foundation for significant clinical and commercial value creation beginning in 2027. And as we highlighted at our 2025 R&D Day last December, this is just the beginning.
With that, I will hand the call back to Kyle.
Thanks, Sanjay. Nicky, I think we're ready for questions now.
[Operator Instructions] We will take our first question from Tazeen Amas with Bank of America.
2. Question Answer
Congratulations on a strong quarter. I wanted to ask about Cronesciti growth relative to where you thought it would be at this stage, how is that launch progressing? And can you talk to us about what the physician activation efforts have been, are they reactivating older patients? And where are most of their scripts currently coming from?
Thanks, Tazeen. I'll let Eric take that question.
Tazeen, I would say overall that we're ahead of where we expected to be at this point, approximately 5 quarters into the launch. Certainly, we are very pleased with the continued adoption that we saw in Q1. I would describe the new patient starts as very steady and consistent with the trend that we saw from Q4, along with continued strong persistency and compliance and favorable reimbursement. So as a result, the prescriptions and the sales are really accumulating nicely.
I will point out, though, that most physicians that have prescribed chronicity have only treated 1 patient thus far. And even though we've made great progress in the first year of the launch there, the majority of patients have yet to be treated. So we see a substantial opportunity ahead.
We will move next with Paul Matisse with Stifel.
Congrats on a great quarter. For INGREZZA and Cenessity, can you confirm that there weren't any material changes in inventory build or other one-offs that would have temporarily boosted the results for this 1Q? And then just as a second part to this for INGREZZA, in prior years, there's been some nuanced seasonality considerations and headwinds in 1Q that have been problematic for you temporarily in January and February, but then ultimately lead to some tailwinds into 2Q. I was wondering if you can speak to what that seasonality dynamic might have been this quarter? Has it gotten better now that you've contracted? And just as a result, like what could the cadence look like sequentially this year versus prior years?
Yes. So on the inventory, there was nothing material, nothing to note, a really clean quarter, reflecting very strong underlying demand. Team did a really good job managing through seasonality this quarter and would expect it to be somewhat similar to what you've seen historically. So well done to the team, and we're set up for a nice growth year, the rest of 2026.
Our next question comes from Brian Abrams with RBC Capital Markets.
My congrats on the quarter as well. On Kinesis, so it sounds like the new patient start forms have been steady and consistent. I was wondering if you could elaborate a little bit more on that? And maybe what's the right way we should be thinking about the expected cadence going forward just based on the trends that you've been observing of late?
Thanks, Brian. This is Kyle. I think Eric did a nice job articulating what we've seen in terms of new patient starts for Q1. As we mentioned previously, we are moving away from sharing specific numbers and focusing more on top line net sales moving forward, which would be consistent with other companies just where orphan medicines, but leaning into that and providing color where we think it's relevant. And in terms of Q1, we did see good steady new patient starts going from Q4 to Q1, and that extended to persistency and consistency or compliance as well and then continued good reimbursement rate of dispense scripts.
So with that, there's been broad accumulation of patients over time since long, and that's what's given right to first on performance in Q1, and we look forward to building on that with our expanded sales team here in the remainder of the year.
We will move next with Cory Kasimov with Evercore ISI.
Great. Appreciate you taking the -- and yes, it was a great quarter, but I do want to switch gears a little bit and ask about the pipeline. I'm curious if there's anything you can say as to the accrual of your ongoing Phase III neuropsych assets to both MDD and schizophrenia, and when do you think you might be in a better position to provide more granular or narrowed guidance on timing of these top line readouts that might kind of attract a little bit more attention there.
I appreciate the question. I think I'll let Sanjay take this.
Yes. So with respect to our current Phase III program, specifically in seat for MDD and directed in schizophrenia, they're all enrolling really well. So we're very happy with the current enrollment rate. And indeed, they should be reading out next year osiampator, all 3 Phase III studies. As per directed, we're expecting the first Phase III next year, but the second Phase III the following year. So everything on track as originally envisaged.
Our next question comes from Caren Johnson with Goldman Sachs.
I was just curious if you could talk a little bit about the reauthorization processes you saw for Conect in 1Q? And if you could provide any kind of commentary on reimbursements you're seeing in that population?
Yes. So as a reminder, the patient population with classic CAH that are starting chronicity are quite different than from a payer perspective than what we see with tardive dyskinesia. So CH population is primarily commercially insured and secondarily, Medicaid, the second biggest segment. So we don't see a surge in reauthorizations at the beginning of the calendar year, like we do with INGREZZA because of the low Medicare exposure. Really, what we see is that typically, when a patient gets authorization for their first prescription, it's normally going to be either 6 or 12 months. And then those reauthorizations happen as that initial set of prescriptions runs out of authorized fills.
So -- Overall, we've seen really high rate of reauthorization approvals, just like we saw with initial approvals for Kronecity, and it's going very well.
Our next question comes from Phil Nadeau with TD Cowen.
Congratulations. I wanted to follow up on the answer that you gave to Tazeen's question. I think in the answer to your question, you said that the vast majority of physicians have only written for conicity once. We're curious to have a little bit more detail on where the patients starting are coming from, whether it's community or expert centers or on checks adjustment to have been a decent proportion of patients coming from expert centers. So is that likely to continue? Do you feel like you've begun to saturate that part of the market and are moving more into community? Or is there still a lot more room to go at the expert centers?
Yes. In a nutshell, we haven't saturated any part of this market yet. Still early days with the commercial ramp for Cronecity. As a reminder, thinking about the 3 segments of prescribers out there, the centers of excellence, the pediatric endocrinologists and the adult and the community endocrinologist. What we estimated was about 15-ish percent of the patients are currently under the care of 1 of those centers of excellence. And I would say, in general, the -- in terms of the distribution of the business so far, it's been proportional in terms of sources of business. And ultimately, we recognize that probably the biggest rate limiter for getting patients started is the flow of patients through these practices. Most of these patients only see their physician once a year if they're adult patients. And if it's a pediatric patient, it could be 2 or 3 times a year.
So I think that's a contributor to this very steady rate of new patient adds. And certainly, being early in the launch, some of these physicians are getting their initial experience that they have additional patients, they're just waiting for them to come through. I think the sales force expansion is really going to allow us to increase not only the depth of prescribing, but also to increase the breadth of the prescriber base.
We will move next with Brian Skorney with Baird.
Great quarter. it seems like we've become pretty accustomed and truly seems good at modeling sort of the first quarter headwind INGREZZA basis. You've spoken about much different payer mix for corona. But I'm just wondering if you could kind of give any color or even quantification of any sort of seasonality you're seeing there? I mean -- or should we kind of walking this as sort of a step up from here on out would be somewhere in the $20 million per quarter range.
Brian, a clarifier, -- are you making the comment relative to INGREZZA or what to expect seasonality for Krones.
No. What to expect -- what, if anything, you're seeing in terms of seasonality for corona, I think the Street pretty much understands the seasonality dynamic for INGREZZA also ask them. Can we try to help us try and understand what, if any, there is for cranes that you're seeing?
Yes. On the gross to net front, maybe a couple of points of improvement coming off of Q1, but overall, we're still pretty early in this launch cycle, so to be able to tag a normal seasonality, it would be hard for us to say. But we do know, as Eric was mentioning earlier, the flow of patients is pretty consistent quarter in, quarter out just because of how constrained the prescriber universes. So I wouldn't necessarily point to massive levels of seasonality like you -- maybe not massive, but seasonality like you see with INGREZZA.
Yes, an -- I'm sorry, I'll just tag on and say that we don't have the bolus of reauthorizations in Q1 like we do for INGREZZA. And it's still early in the commercial ramp for Cronecity. And we're learning a lot about the patient dynamics and sort of the ebbs and flows. But I think the overlying theme has been just really consistent adoption across the community. And obviously, with the sales force expansion, we'll be able to get deeper with the existing prescriber base and also expand that base over time.
Our next question comes from Anupam Rama with JPMorgan.
Congrats on the quarter. So just a quick question about the upcoming ENDO meeting. What are some of the key market sort of physician outreach initiatives that you're going to have at the conference as well as any -- remind us of any data updates we could be expecting for Kinect at the meeting?
So Anupam, I'll sort of handle the first part of your question. So obviously, we're looking forward to Endo coming up in June as an opportunity to engage with the broader endocrinology community. In fact, we were just at a couple of important endocrinology meetings since these past few weeks, this past weekend. the Pediatric Endocrine Society meeting was up in unit of the woods in San Francisco, and I was there and was really impressed with the, let's call it, the energy and the enthusiasm that we are seeing from the pediatric endos that had experience with cronecity. There were 2 different seminars on CAH at that meeting, and both of them were packed room, which I think is indicative of the level of interest, had a bunch of KOL engagements at that meeting. And so it certainly came away with a lot of momentum and we expect to have similar momentum coming out of the ENDO meeting in June.
And I'll just answer the second part of the question, Anupam. So the community continued to be enthused by our 2-year open-label data showing the impact of decreased doses of glucortigoid and also decreased androgen levels. And so that relates to better weight control, decrease intern resistance as well as decreased issues of realization, like decreased acne and also decreased advancement of bone age, which is obviously incredibly important in terms of attainment of other heights for children.
And this is all in the context of really good safety and tolerability. So we've now had 35,000 patient week exposures. So all in all, really excited about the reception we're getting from the community, both at recent endoconferences and future ones this year.
Our next question comes from Jay Olson with Oppenheimer.
Congrats on all the progress and thank you for providing these update. You're planning to move your Friedreich's ataxia gene therapy program to the clinic this year, can you just talk about the Phase I study design and what sort of initial data we should expect in 2027. And then separately, for your NLRP3 program that you recently licensed you could maybe talk about the time line for moving that into the clinic and where that molecule fits into your core therapeutic areas?
Yes, Jay, this is Kyle. Thanks for the question. I think I'll just focus on the predrataxia program, and we can catch up offline on the other programs in the portfolio. But we're looking at starting the FA program here shortly. Once we have all the details of that ironed out, you'll see that up on clinicaltrials.gov, and we'll be able to talk in more details on that. But we are planning on sharing patient-level data towards the end of next year. So kind of consider this as a Phase Ib trial will be starting initially in the patient population. So we're excited to potentially offer a curative therapy for patients, and I look forward to talking more about this later this year, in particular at R&D Day when we can go over the program in more detail.
We will move next with Myles Minter with William Blair.
Just wanted to get your updated thoughts on your BCG agonist here. Obviously, we've got Lilly's Transcend type 2 diabetes data, which is pretty impressive but did show pretty high rates of vomiting and diarrhea and nausea. So just considering you're still proposing to put this in a combo with a CRF 2 agonist. I'm just wondering your updated thoughts on the therapeutic window here and -- as you put that into the Phase 1 development here this year.
Thanks for your question, Miles. Yes, it's still early days for us. So clearly, we're going to be very excited about the readout for, as you mentioned, our CRR2 agonist for obesity, which will be next year. And we're assuming that will be our core constituent of a number of different combinations including 1 with the BCG program. Our BCG program, we are targeting for first in human this year. And so we'll have the potential to actually look iteratively at clinical data for both programs to understand the ideal combination as it affects the risk-benefit profile.
We will move next with Ash Verma with UBS.
This is Jon on for Ash. For INGREZZA payer coverage standpoint, we saw that data XR has lost preferred coverage with a few key points recently. We just wanted to understand the implications of that for INGREZZA for rest of this year and next year. Do you think it's possible that PBMs are switching commercial coverage in front of the IRA year to defend or rebates?
Maybe I'll take this question here. Our coverage as it relates to 2026 is very similar to where we exited 2025. We have about 70% of all TD and HD Medicare beneficiary lives covered for INGREZZA and that puts us in a good spot in terms of the loss of deuterated tetrabenazine on certain plans. I think on a relative basis, things that are approved for INGREZZA, but we wouldn't expect any wide changes out there in terms of reimbursement for INGREZZA.
We will move next with Marc Goodman with Leerink.
This is Pam on for Mark. Just to follow-up on a previous question on the 24-month data for Kinect. Can you remind us again of the prevalence of the insulin resistance and obesity in pediatric CAH patients and also in adults? And how would this data received by with the physicians? And how clinically meaningful did they find it? Regarding the persistency, it's been also been very strong to date. Can you remind us again what are the main reasons for patients discontinuing honesty -- that's it for us.
So with respect to the first part of the question. So unfortunately, weight gain as well as issues with insulin resistance and other cardiometabolic issues -- we're actually quite common in the pediatric CH population. And this largely relates to the high doses of logo corticoids that they receive. And it's also thought that the androgen levels that they are typically on, with respect to the elevation can also contribute to this cardiometabolic morbidity. So the impacts we've seen with cronesity we expect the 2-year data have been really well received by the community with respect to them being clinically meaningful. But I'll hand it over to Eric for the second part.
Yes. Actually, I just want to emphasize that we've seen really very strong persistence and compliance with chronicity in the real-world setting, consistent with what we saw in our Phase III trials. As a reminder, in the adult and the pediatric studies, it was around 95% of patients that completed in those trials and rolled over. And then in the 2-year open-label data that we just have been presenting recently at the conferences, over 80% of patients completed 2 years. So it's been very favorable in terms of patients continuing to stay on treatment. And I think that, that's a big contributor to the accumulation of prescriptions and sales that we're seeing this early in the launch.
We will move next to Mohit Bansal with Wells Fargo Securities.
This is Susan on for Mohit. Congrats on the solid quarter. Two questions from us. One on Chronocity. I apologize if I missed this, but did you quantify new patient starts versus persistent patients? And if you can't give specific answer, just high level, what does that look like? And then the follow-up on pipeline. For cipro MDD, how do you guys envision positioning the drugs?
So I'll handle the first part of your question. No, we didn't give a specific number of new patient starts. But what we did say is that the rate of new patient adds in Q1 was very steady, and the trend was very consistent with what we saw in Q4 of last year.
So the second part of the question. So of note, our current patient population for our Phase III studies are patients who have not done well on an antidepressant. So typically, they're on a present that has not achieved a good response, and we're essentially adding on to that antidepressant to achieve a superior response. So this is potentially the niche that we could occupy in the marketplace as well. early, we're also looking at other life cycle opportunities with respect to this molecule.
We will move next with Fadia with Needham.
This is Poonam on for Ami. Congrats on a great quarter. For Kinect, you have previously noted that you've penetrated approximately 10% of the addressable market with higher demand in pediatric followed by other finals and other means. How do you see those trends evolving the sale. And for NBIP-2118, what would you need to see in the Phase I data that would support further development?
Yes. So we're not at the point yet where we're giving guidance on chronicity. But what I can say is that we're still early in the commercial ramp and we're learning a lot about this patient population and this prescriber base. We saw a very steady and consistent -- I should say, and consistent rate of new patient adds in Q1. With the sales force expansion, we expect that we'll be able to -- be able to build the depth in that prescriber base, but also continue to add new prescribers. There's a lot of these patients also that are not under the care of an endocrinologist. And so with our patient finding efforts, we expect to be able to reach and activate some of those patients this year as well. So I feel very good about where we are with the launch of Cronescity. And certainly, there's a lot of room for organic growth going forward.
On NBIP20118, we're just getting that study up and running, and we'll have data on that in the second half of 2027.
We will move next with David Amsellem with Viper Semler..
Wondering if you could talk more about 14.35 given that you're going to have Phase II data in CAH next year. Can you talk about relative potency versus cronecity at the CRF1 receptor? And then also, what do you need to see in terms of differentiation versus cones in terms of clinical outcomes and biomarker outcomes in order to justify further advancement.
Yes. So we're really excited about our 1,435 program. So just a contact. This is an injectable peptide. So the nice thing here is we could administer this infrequently to individuals. Then secondly, we have some nice data, at least preclinically with respect to better durable efficacy. And that relates to both the length of the efficacy, but also the depth of the efficacy as well. but the nice things from a drug development point of view is that we have good biomarkers in the area of CAH. So we can directly compare the biomarker readouts, including androgen reduction for this Phase II program compared to our prior results with Kronescity.
And maybe just to add a bit here more on this call at our R&D Day, we outlined a tiered strategy for our endocrine franchise as it relates to diseases of HP access dysregulation, Croniecity is going to be the foundational therapy that's part of this for many years into the future. So you can consider that first line in an NBIP1435 offers patients an alternative route of administration. and potentially other types of differentiation as we'll be able to identify in the clinical program, and you can think of that as a second line. And it's part of a whole series of programs that we think that can target different patient populations for CH patients moving forward.
We will take our next question from Yigal Nochomovitz with Citi.
Congrats on the strong quarter as well. I was curious with regards to the 90% of TD patients that are not currently on a VMAT2 inhibitor. I'm wondering with regard to the recent consensus recommendations on TD screening in the long-term care setting. to what extent that may help advance the gains in market share in that 90% of the segment of TD patients?
Yes, certainly, it's going to help -- what we've seen over time is that in part due to our educational efforts, we've raised awareness of tardive dyskinesia and certainly more commonly and more frequently, we see routine screening for tardive dyskinesia across different care settings, including long-term care more recently. And so having some criteria and consensus around the need for screening and have screen, especially for residents and long-term care facilities. I think raises that index of suspicion in nursing homes, and we can get more people helped.
The other thing that I'll reinforce here is that month of May is our mental health awareness month. And this week, in particular, is TD Awareness Week. And certainly, our teams in the field, our sales teams, our medical teams are leveraging TD Awareness Week to really raise the energy and the excitement around TD screening across all care settings, including long-term care.
We will move next with Sumant Kulkarni with Canaccord.
It's 2 parts. What are your thoughts on developing CRF antagonist in commission and working memory related indications? And you have a lot of pipeline programs now that target several therapeutic areas, so are there some that are already earmarked for external partnering depending on how they progress in the pipeline?
Yes. Sumant, this is Kyle. I'll take your second question here on the partnering piece. I'll go right now is to be able to move forward programs across our key therapeutic areas: neurology, psychiatry, endocrinology and immunology. Right now, I would say our pipeline is more weighted to psychiatry. But as our R&D engine moves more programs in the clinic, you will see that evolve into other modalities, small molecules, proteins, peptides as well as therapies across disease modification and symptomatic treatment of disease. And we'll follow the science into these different therapeutic areas as we have expertise now across these.
Right now, we don't have anything slated for partnering. But as time moves along and we see how these programs progress. we'd certainly be in a spot to consider those types of relationships moving forward. It's not something that's foreign to us. As you know, Neurocrine was built on partnerships both in and out licensing.
With respect to the first question, it's really, really interesting concept. Indeed, just anecdotally, in our CH patients, we have reported improvements in executive functioning suggested that there may be a link to CRF and cognition. So clearly, that's an area of study for us, and I'm sure we'll be producing some data on that down the road.
We will move next with Jatin Suneja with Guggenheim.
A really quick 1 for Matt. Can you maybe help me understand the tax? I think last year was about 30% for the year. How should we model this year and maybe in the long term?
Yes. I always love tax questions. No, I would expect our non-GAAP effective tax rate to be between 22% and 24% this year and within the low 20s percent going forward. So I think that's the appropriate way to model.
We will move next with Danielle Brill with Therese Securities.
Congrats on the strong quarter. So you mentioned with Cronecity that you have slightly more traction with females and pediatrics as expected. But curious what additional clinical or real-world evidence are needed or would help drive broader buy-in from the male and adult CAH patients? And then sorry if I missed this before, but was there any rationale behind the diurnal sale, anything to read into on that?
Yes. This is Kyle. I'll start with the Diana piece. I think for our perspective, looking at the opportunity in Europe, which is primarily where the medicine is currently available. We felt that was well better suited in an organization that had other products in the commercial landscape at the current time. We'll consider looking at our own medicines as they evolve through the pipeline in the commercial landscape. But we felt that was the right move earlier this year. On the other question, Eric, would you like to take that one?
Yes. So thinking about these different patient segments, it's very clear that there's high motivation to treat these pediatric patients, and we saw that at the Pediatric Endocrine Society meeting this past week. The theme is that with these younger patients, you need to protect the bone age, you need to protect the growth trajectory and you need to prevent early onset puberty. for older patients, for adult patients, depending on gender, the rationale for treatment, I think, is a little bit different. Certainly, for these adult patients, there's concern about bone mineral density, the potential for increased cardiovascular risk. mood disorders, et cetera.
So depending on one's gender and 1 stage of life, I think that there's benefit from treatment with Cronescity. For males in particular, I can say, as an adult mail myself, we're not the best of seeing our doctors frequently were not very compliant. So our expectation from a pre-approval work that we did was that it would probably take a little bit longer to really to onboard adult male patients relative to the female patients and to the pediatric patients.
We will move next with Laura Chico with Wedbush Securities.
I've got 1 on Cronescity. I won't ask about the pace of new patient adds for the remainder of '26 versus '25. But I might ask about what your expectations are in terms of maintaining compliance and persistence this year versus last year. You mentioned the expanded field force. You've also seen gains on the reimbursement side. So just trying to think about how we should think about the persistency and compliance rates in '26 on Cronescity?
Thanks, Laura. So we've been looking at compliance and persistency throughout the course of the first year of the launch, and we've seen that it's very consistent regardless of when patients started on treatment, whether it was early last year, mid last year or even the latter part of last year. It's been very consistent. And I think it's really a function of 2 things. One is the really great tolerability profile of Cronecity that emerged in the clinical trials and the open label extension. But also the fact that we have a single pharmacy distributor, which is Panther, and they do a great job of reaching out to the patients and following up with them, and they've had a lot of success in terms of when it's time to get that refill being able to reach that patient and to get it authorized.
We will move next with Huang with Deutsche Bank.
This is Sam on for David. Just a quick 1 on crinecerfont in CAA patients under the age 4 of the impending Phase II study. How should we be thinking about the opportunity for this patient subset perhaps in terms of patient numbers or unmet need or potential contribution to the existing CAH franchise down the line? And then if there's anything else you can share in terms of the regulatory or commercial time line for this development?
So I'll tackle the, I guess, the unmet need part. So obviously, that's an important -- like I said, for these younger patients, the earlier you can intervene the better in terms of protecting that growth trajectory in the bone age and so on. Right now, the labeling is limited to patients that are age 4 and above. And we have gotten a fair number of inquiries from parents with children that are under 4 asking about the availability or whether they can get treatment and certainly from their pediatric endocrinologists. So we recognize that there's an unmet need there, and we'd like to be able to address it.
Yes, in respect to the regulatory path. So clearly, we need data in patients less than 4 years of age. That's the main rationale for starting this U.S.-based study. And we expect the time lines we're assuming in the next couple of years, we'll have the data to potentially expand the label.
We will move next with Rudy Lee with Wolf Research.
Congrats again on the strong quarter. sell follow-up question on INGREZZA. I think we touched on seasonality already. But can you provide more color on the pattern for the remaining 3 quarters especially given the relatively stronger 1Q versus prior years? And did you note any changes in the market dynamics for the RA negotiation for Rasco?
So in general, we expect 2026 to be similar to prior years, where we experienced seasonal payer disruption in Q1 primarily related to Medicare patients needing to get reauthorized in commercial patients having a reset of their out-of-pocket co-pay. Thankfully, we've moved through that phase of the year already. This year, we were also in the midst of an expansion. And I would point out that our team did an incredibly great job of continuing to keep the momentum going with our business and to expand our field sales organization. And that became effective in early Q2. Generally, what we see after that Q1 payer seasonality is just a really strong focus on execution, being able to drive new patient starts through screening initiatives over the course of the balance of the year.
And this year, in particular, with an expanded field sales team. As I mentioned in my prepared remarks, we expect to see tangible lift and benefit from the expanded team as we get into the latter part of the year.
We will move next with Evan Seigerman with BMO Capital Markets.
McMartin on for Evan. Congrats on a quarter. Just doubling back on the persistence and compliance rates for Prenesti. I know you noted that these have been really strong and consistent since the launch. But for the few discontinuations that do occur are those mostly due to insurance-related issues or product profile? And have those changed over the course of the first year at all?
Yes, it's hard to really comment on what turned out to be a very low rate of patients discontinuing. In general, I would say that we haven't seen people discontinuing due to insurance reasons. In fact, out-of-pocket costs are really low, they're less than $10 per patient per month in many patients, nothing at all. And so affordability hasn't really been an issue or a reason to discontinue. There have been instances where patients have moved or they've been lost to follow up. but those are very few and far between. And certainly, we've been very pleased with the persistency that we've seen about 5 quarters now into this launch.
Thank you. And at this time, there are no further questions in queue. I will now turn the call back over to Kyle Gano for closing comments.
Thanks, Nick, and thanks, everyone, for joining the call today, your continued interest and support in Neurocrine. We are very encouraged by the strong start of the year that gives us a lot of momentum when we think about the remaining quarters. And likewise, our continued momentum across our commercial portfolio. the progress to advance our clinical pipeline, and we're very looking forward to looking -- to connecting with you all upcoming investor conferences and events. Thanks again, and talk to you soon.
Thank you. This brings us to the end of today's meeting. We appreciate your time and participation. You may now disconnect.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Q1 2026 Earnings Call
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Q1 2026 Earnings Call
Strong Q1 2026 momentum with INGREZZA-leading growth and a robust pipeline on track.
📊 Quarter at a Glance
- Revenue: >$800M in Q1 2026, up >40% YoY
- INGREZZA: $657M in Q1, +20% YoY (about +11% adjusting for 1 fewer week in Q1 2025)
- Cronecity: $153M in Q1, strong adoption with steady new patient starts; some gross-to-net pressure from copay resets
- Guidance: INGREZZA 2026 guidance reaffirmed at $2.7B–$2.8B; Krenesninow annualizing >$600M; ICAT XR addition pending; Sileno/Vicat XR close expected in Q2
- R&D & Ops: ~6 new Phase I and 4 new Phase II programs planned in 2026; data readouts for Osabampator, direcadine, and CRF2-obesity in next 18 months
🎯 What Management Says
- Strategic focus: Reaffirmed path to diversify revenue and grow the pipeline, with INGREZZA leading and ICAT XR adding to the commercial portfolio
- Commercial momentum: Cronecity and INGREZZA launches progressing with broad prescriber adoption, favorable reimbursement dynamics, and expanding sales force
- Pipeline momentum: Aggressive 2026 execution across 9 Phase I/II programs; multiple near-term data catalysts planned for 2027
🔭 Outlook & Guidance
- Guidance: INGREZZA 2026 revenue guidance unchanged at $2.7B–$2.8B; Sileno/Vicat XR closest approach in Q2; no financial guidance provided for the transaction yet
- R&D catalysts: 6 Phase I and 4 Phase II programs in 2026; data readouts for Osabampator, direcadine, and CRF2-obesity within 18 months; 2027 data readouts for OSabampator in MDD and for directed in schizophrenia
- Risks & timing: Acquisition integration and regulatory timelines remain key near-term uncertainties; details to be provided at upcoming earnings/event cycles
❓ Analyst Q&A
- Cronecity launch & activation: Questions centered on new patient flow, segment mix (centers of excellence vs community endos) and how physician activation will scale with the expanded field force; management emphasized steady new starts and large untapped patient pools
- Pipeline timing: Enrolment progress for Phase III MDD (Osabampator) and directed in schizophrenia; Osabampator and all three Phase III studies expected to read out in 2027, with the first Phase III readout for directed in schizophrenia in 2027 and a second in 2028
- Market access & reimbursements: Q&A covered payer dynamics for Cronescity CAH and INGREZZA; discussions highlighted high reauthorization rates for CAH and stable Medicare coverage for TD/HD, with ongoing emphasis on broadening payer access
⚡ Bottom Line
The quarter reinforces Neurocrine’s position as a growth-focused, diversified biopharma with a strong commercial core and a deep, expanding pipeline. The company reaffirmed 2026 INGREZZA guidance, highlighted Cronecity’s durable momentum, and underscored meaningful near‑term data catalysts and a strategic acquisition path that could broaden value for shareholders, with closer details on the Sileno/Vicat XR transaction expected in Q2.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc., Soleno Therapeutics, Inc. - M&A Call
1. Management Discussion
Hello and welcome, everyone joining today's Neurocrine to acquire Soleno Therapeutics conference call. [Operator Instructions] Please note, this call is being recorded, and we are standing by if you should need any assistance. It is now my pleasure to turn the meeting over to Todd Tushla, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.
Good Monday morning, everyone. Thanks for joining the Neurocrine Biosciences call to discuss our planned acquisition of Soleno Therapeutics. On the call with me are Kyle Gano, Chief Executive Officer; and Samir Siddhanti, Vice President of Strategy and Business Development.
Kyle and Samir will provide opening comments, and then we'll move to a Q&A session, where we'll also be joined by Matt Abernethy, Chief Financial Officer; Eric Benevich, Chief Commercial Officer; and Sanjay Keswani, our Chief Medical Officer. Note that we posted today's slides to the Investors section of our website at neurocrine.com that you can follow along with for the discussion.
During today's call, we will be making forward-looking statements about the proposed tender offer for all shares of Soleno Therapeutics and subsequent merger and the business prospects of Neurocrine, including expectations regarding the tender offers anticipated occurrence, manner and timing, satisfaction of the required conditions to the tender offer and subsequent merger, its potential benefits and financial impact for Neurocrine, our integration plans, the development and potential expansion of Soleno's commercial product, VYKAT XR and other statements that are not historical facts.
These statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties, and our actual results may differ materially depending on whether the transactions are completed as anticipated, if at all, the number of Soleno stockholders that will tender shares in the offer, the possibility of competing offers or acquisition proposals, Neurocrine's ability to realize the anticipated benefits of the proposed transactions, Neurocrine's ability to leverage its capabilities to extend the reach of VYKAT XR to more patients and additional factors set forth in the press release issued today and Neurocrine's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Further, we will be filing documents related to the tender offer, and we encourage you to read them since they will have important information about the tender offer. With that, I'll hand the call to Kyle.
Thanks, Todd, and good morning, everyone. We're pleased to announce that Neurocrine has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire Soleno Therapeutics. This is an important and exciting day for our company, our shareholders and employees, and most importantly, for the Prader-Willi Syndrome patients and the Prader-Willi Syndrome community.
Let me begin with the key takeaways on Slide 4 of today's presentation. First, Soleno is an exceptional strategic and financial fit with Neurocrine, and this acquisition reinforces Neurocrine's commitment to delivering therapies that are transformative for patients. The Soleno team has done an outstanding job advancing VYKAT XR, demonstrating strong efficacy in a complex disease with a clean and straightforward label that enables broad utilization. Importantly, both organizations share a deep commitment to patients. We believe this unique alignment will enable seamless integration grounded in a patient-first mindset.
Second, the acquisition of Soleno will accelerate Neurocrine's revenue growth and portfolio diversification strategy continuing Neurocrine's evolution and transformation to a leading biopharmaceutical company with multiple first-in-class medicines. The addition of VYKAT XR, a first-in-class treatment for hyperphagia and Prader-Willi Syndrome represents a highly competitive example of our strategy to bring forward novel medicines that are transformative for patients and their families.
Third, the transaction will position Neurocrine to deliver sustained growth and value creation. Soleno immediately increases our top line revenue growth, enabling us to continue to innovate and deliver more medicines for patients. With a strong intellectual property estate, VYKAT XR supports continued innovation, development and long-term value creation.
Slide 5 outlines the attractive financial terms of the transaction, under which Neurocrine through a subsidiary, will commence a cash tender offer to acquire all the outstanding shares of Soleno at a price of $53 per share, representing a total enterprise transaction value of approximately $2.9 billion. The transaction is not subject to any financing condition and will be funded with cash on hand, and we plan to optimize our capital structure by taking on a modest level of prepayable debt. We expect the acquisition to deliver meaningful financial benefits including accelerated revenue growth and enhanced cash flow generation through greater commercial diversification.
On Slide 6, you see an overview of Soleno in their product VYKAT XR. We believe VYKAT XR has blockbuster potential given the size of the patient population, the unmet need and Prader-Willi Syndrome and supported by a strong intellectual property estate. We are excited to build on the strong foundation established by the Soleno team and will look to educate an increased awareness in order to help more patients living with Prader-Willi Syndrome access effective treatment.
With this addition, our high-growth portfolio now totals 3 first-in-class medicines: INGREZZA, CRENESSITY and VYKAT XR, we expect the transaction to be immediately accretive to revenue growth in 2026.
I'll now turn the call over to Samir Siddhanti, Vice President of Business Development and Strategy, who led the acquisition process.
Thanks, Kyle, and good morning, everyone. Over the next few slides, I'll briefly cover the product, the disease and the opportunity. Staying on Slide 6. VYKAT XR was approved by the FDA in March 2025 and launched in the U.S. in the second quarter. The launch has been strong, generating $190 million in 2025 revenue to Soleno, including $92 million in the fourth quarter alone. This early performance reflects strong physician adoption and more importantly, the meaningful impact by VYKAT XR is having on both patients and caregivers. We greatly admire what the Soleno team has accomplished and look forward to building on this foundation to reach more patients.
Turning to Slide 7. Prader-Willi Syndrome is a rare genetic neurodevelopmental disorder, affecting approximately 10,000 people in the United States. The disease is characterized by neurological, behavioral and metabolic dysfunction. It's defining features hyperphagia, a chronic and life-threatening condition marked by a persistent hunger that drives compulsive food-seeking behavior and significantly impacts quality of life for both patients and their families. This insatiable hunger is often accompanied by serious behavioral challenges and comorbidities, which can increase mortality. Given the severity of the condition, there remains a clear need for effective treatments like VYKAT XR.
Turning to Slide 8. VYKAT XR is the first and only FDA-approved treatment for hyperphagia in patients with Prader-Willi Syndrome. By directly addressing the core and most life-threatening symptom of the disease, VYKAT XR is positioned to play a central role in treatment.
Given this profile, we see a significant opportunity in the U.S. With a well-defined patient population and high unmet need, Neurocrine's capabilities addressing diseases at the intersection of neuroscience and endocrinology position us well to expand access and reach more patients. Alongside CRENESSITY and our growing endocrinology pipeline, including NBIP-'1435 for CAH and NBIP-'2118 for obesity, VYKAT XR will be an important addition to Neurocrine's portfolio.
I'll now hand the call back to Kyle.
Thanks, Samir. Turning to Slide 9. Neurocrine is well positioned to expand adoption of VYKAT XR by leveraging our commercial infrastructure and therapeutic expertise across the full spectrum of symptoms experienced by individuals with Prader-Willi Syndrome. With continued growth from INGREZZA, a strong early launch trajectory for CRENESSITY and now the addition of VYKAT XR, we are excited to have 3 growing medicines that have achieved or we believe will achieve blockbuster status.
Slide 10 reflects our continued enterprise-wide momentum and disciplined approach across commercial, R&D and financial priorities as well as the key pipeline milestones in 2026 and that will build on the strong foundation we've established across the business.
Lastly, Slide 11 outlines how this acquisition strengthens our leadership position in endocrinology and rare disease and enhances our ability to deliver sustained growth and value.
With that, let's open up the line for questions.
[Operator Instructions] And we'll take our first question from Paul Matteis with Stifel -- apologies, we'll move to Brian Skorney with Baird.
2. Question Answer
Congratulations on the deal here. This is Charlie on for Brian. So we were just wondering, as you think about the landscape out there, there are a few competitive assets in development for Prader-Willi. It's a growing area of interest. So could you just talk to us about your confidence in the competitive profile here and where you see the landscape going in the next few years?
Thanks, Charlie. I appreciate the question this morning. I think I'll let Samir field this question.
Charlie, thanks for the question. Let me just start by saying that we're really excited about this transaction. We've been following this company in space for some time. And this sits right at the intersection of Neuro and Endo, so it really couldn't be a better strategic fit for us here.
We had a thorough diligence process that included evaluating the competitive landscape. We've been tracking that very closely. There's unfortunately been some setbacks in the space over the last 12 months. We feel good about where this asset is positioned to be a best and first-in-class treatment for PWS.
We'll move next to Paul Matteis with Stifel.
Not sure what happened there. Two quick things. One, can you guys talk about the diligence you did that made you confident on VYKAT persistence on a go-forward basis? And two, does the deal value here credit anything in Europe? And what are your thoughts on approval prospects there?
Thanks, Paul. Appreciate the questions here. Maybe just to catch up on the diligence piece. This was a rigorous diligence process that we undertook. We are well situated to review programs and assets and endocrinology space, given our team that developed CRENESSITY and brought that to that patient population in congenital adrenal hyperplasia. So we're well skilled here in experience when it comes to looking at programs in this space.
And likewise, on the commercialization side of things. And we've heard -- you've heard from us over the past couple of years, and we've talked about the launch of rare disease medicines. There's always ebbs and flows, when it comes to start forms as well as patients coming in and off of therapy. And what we've seen thus far across our diligence is all the profile aspects of a potential blockbuster in the making with VYKAT XR. So very pleased overall with the data that we've seen through launch and leading through all the information that we reviewed thus far in the data in 2026. So a very good view there overall.
In terms of Europe, we have no plans for bringing this medicine into Europe at the moment. Our deal value and model only contemplated the U.S. opportunity. And this was deliberate and intentional and very much the same way we've talked about CRENESSITY.
You only get one time to launch a medicine in a rare disease that's even more important. Each patient is important as you think about the early years of the launch. So right now, the focus is just on the U.S. opportunity, creating -- continuing to leverage the momentum the team developed in 2025 for 2026 and beyond.
Is that because of [ MFN ] risk, Kyle?
No, that's certainly just looking at making sure that we continue focusing on the U.S. launch. In rare disease, each patient is important. You want to make sure that you're able to leverage all the things that you started at the beginning of the launch without missing a beat. So it really is just the continuity of what the team has created on the side of Soleno and continuing that momentum in 2026.
We'll take our next question from Tazeen Ahmad with Bank of America.
This is Jeremy on for Tazeen. Congrats on the update today. I just wanted to ask a quick question on once the VYKAT XR launch is fully in Neurocrine's hand, what are the key focuses that the sales team will look to key in on in order to continue a strong launch? And then maybe just a follow-up on the prior question, just with regards to how you guys are thinking about long-term persistence of the therapy, just how that factors into your peak sales expectations?
Thanks, Jeremy. Maybe I'll pass this question to Eric. Eric, would you like to share your thoughts.
Yes. So I just want to reiterate how excited we are about the opportunity to build on the great work that the Soleno team has done launching VYKAT XR. And certainly, it's still very early in its commercial ramp.
We're excited with what we saw in 2025 in terms of the receptivity and the uptake and recognize though that there's still a long way to go, given the size of the PWS patient population and the significant unmet need.
One of the things that we've seen is that there's still need for ongoing education in the endocrinology community to help the providers really understand, I think, the full range of impact of hyperphagia. It's not just the insatiable hunger that these patients experienced. But really the behavioral aspects that need to be fully appreciated, the preoccupation with food that drive to consume food, all the behavioral problems that come from this and then, of course, the overeating and all the way to the point of morbid obesity or even gastric rupture or choking. So we recognize that the Soleno team has done a great job thus far, but there's still a lot of people to reach and educate in the community. And so I think that will be one of the focuses as we go forward for sure.
Phil Nadeau with TD Cowen.
Congratulations on the deal. Two questions from us. So first, following up on the last question. It's our impression that most patients here are diagnosed and either treated at an expert center or institutionalized. In your prepared remarks, you talked about reaching additional patients. So can you give us some sense of where those additional patients are and what proportion of the market you think Neurocrine can reach that perhaps Soleno couldn't? And then second, maybe more detailed question, I think Soleno has guided to 1,000 patient start forms within the first 12 months of launch. What's your confidence that, that number will be hit?
Eric, do you want to comment on this?
Sure. Yes. Let me take the second part of the question first. Our confidence is high. Obviously, we did substantial diligence and looking at all aspects of the commercial opportunity here and we recognize that, as I mentioned earlier, it is still early in the commercial ramp.
We see some similarities to our experience with CRENESSITY in the sense of there are some centers and some practices that have a concentration of these PWS patients, but there also is what we call a long tail of patients that are being cared for in community practices.
And certainly, those are -- the majority of patients are sort of outside of these centers of excellence or of these more concentrated practices. So it takes time to reach them all. And we also see that similar to what we see in the opportunity with CRENESSITY in CAH that these patients aren't necessarily seeing the providers frequently over the course of the year. So there might be only 1 or 2 times per year that they're seeing that they're seeing their endocrinologists. And so we have to make sure that VYKAT XR is top of mind when they do have those interactions.
So certainly, there's a lot of opportunity here. And in terms of reaching the patients and reaching that opportunity, we'll be continuing to look at how VYKAT XR is resourced. But obviously, we feel like the Soleno team has done a great job thus far of getting out there and driving the awareness and the education in those community practices and in those centers of excellence. And we think that certainly, we can build on the work that -- the excellent work that the Soleno team has done to be able to reach the vast majority of these patients that need treatment over time.
Maybe just to comment here real quickly to tie a bow on this. There's going to be a lot of things that we're not going to be able to talk about near-term views on the opportunity just because we don't -- we haven't officially acquired the company yet. But our diligence uncovered that we have a very good view on the long-term opportunity here, and we do believe VYKAT XR has all the hallmarks of a blockbuster medicine, and that's what we're keeping our eye on.
We'll take our next question from Brian Abrahams with RBC Capital Markets.
Maybe building on the last question. Just wondering if you can talk a little bit more specifically on how much overlap there is on the call points between CAH and Prader-Willi, maybe quantify the potential for synergies there. And then I guess I'm also curious how this transaction might affect your future capital deployment strategy, whether it changes your plans to reinvest about 35% of your revenue in internal R&D?
Maybe I'll start the question, and then I'll turn it over to Matt to share a few of his thoughts here. Just on the synergy piece, just to point out, our view right now, just to frame it is this is less of a cost synergy play as it is -- as much as it is about adding an additional first-in-class medicine to accelerate our revenue growth and diversification objectives. But of course, there is synergy here when it relates to 2 organizations working in the endocrinology and rare disease space.
And I'll just call out here, I think what Neurocrine brings and what Soleno brings when we combine the companies is certainly commercial scale. I think Neurocrine also offers medical capabilities across endocrinology and rare disease that we'll be able to leverage moving forward.
And then if you think about some of the areas that we've excelled in, at least in my view, for INGREZZA and CRENESSITY, these are both, I would say, similar disease states in terms of being first-in-class. Things like patient finding activities, diagnosis, education for health care providers as well as patients and then access. These are things that I think 1 plus 1 is going to be greater than 2, bringing our medicines together and we'll be able to leverage moving forward.
Now we haven't gone through the overlap here exactly on the prescribers. That's something that we'll get into over the coming weeks and certainly post close. Matt, do you have any thoughts?
No. This is a great transaction. And our capital deployment strategy is not going to change as a result of this highly profitable immediately from day 1, and we all feel really fortunate to have this product in our hands.
We'll move next to Corinne Johnson with Goldman Sachs.
Maybe you could speak to the confidence that you have in the patent protection into -- I think you've said the 2040s. I think Soleno was citing 2035. So could you just speak to kind of your confidence in the IP there?
I appreciate the question. This is Kyle. One of the things that I was pleasantly surprised when we got into diligence is how like-minded both our organizations are in protecting intellectual property and discoveries that have come out of the program. In the course of our diligence, we were able to uncover a pretty robust patent estate, and that gives us confidence that we believe that we'll have exclusivity out to the mid-2040s. So very excited to see that, and it's very consistent with what we've seen across the robustness of their program, ranging from clinical, et cetera. They've done a really excellent job there.
We'll move next to Cory Kasimov with Evercore ISI.
I know you said the deal is immediately accretive to the top line. But over the short to intermediate term, how are you thinking about accretion dilution with regards to the bottom line here?
It's immediately accretive post-close in 2026. It's already generating cash, and we won't be diluting shareholders by issuing shares here. This is an all-cash transaction with a modest level of prepayable debt. So I do feel like this is going to generate nice bottom line growth. But as Kyle said, this is all about revenue. This is about helping more patients and that's what our main focus is going to be on.
We'll move next to Anupam Rama with JPMorgan.
This is Joyce on for Anupam. If I could follow up on the EU for a second. I understand you guys have no plans for the EU, but are you looking specifically to partner out the EU Rest of World opportunity? .
Yes, we'll evaluate that as time moves along. Right now, it really is about focusing our team's effort on continuing the momentum from 2025 moving forward. And we'll have plenty of opportunity to understand the opportunities to bring this important medicine to other jurisdictions down the road.
We'll move next to Josh Schimmer with Cantor.
First, how do you get comfortable that the safety profile of VYKAT XR is going to remain adequate to support meaningful adoption going forward, considering some of the issues that have been very permanently discussed? And then while you've noted that the European launch is not a focus for the company, do you expect European approval on this review? And if so, will you be launching in Europe or not?
First, thanks, Josh. Appreciate the questions here. This is Kyle. Maybe I'll start with your first question. Obviously, we had a very large team diligence the program just as we would for any clinical commercial stage asset. And we had the luxury here to be able to review over 50 years of diazoxide safety, tolerability and efficacy data. And all those elements are pretty well characterized over the many decades of use.
Really, the focus then from our view on perspective was looking at the placebo-controlled as well as the open-label extension data. And with that leading up to the NDA review, we had patients or Soleno had patients on medicine for over 4.5 years. So we have a pretty good feel for this medicine versus if it was another one that was first entering the marketplace, and it gives us great confidence in the safety and tolerability as well as the efficacy that we see in the Prader-Willi syndrome patient population, which is quite robust.
So overall, the risk benefit profile is quite favorable for patients with Prader-Willi Syndrome. And as we've discussed here in a couple of different question, this is a very complex serious disease. And we think that this medicine fits nicely and will serve as a nice foundational medicine for patients for many decades.
We're excited what we have here in VYKAT XR. In terms of your EU question, I think we'll continue to evaluate what happens with the current review in Europe. But right now, it really is making sure that we continue the good success that the team has generated on the side of Soleno last year, and making sure that we're doing all that we can for patients here now, especially as we move through what we will call your typical integration. We don't want to have any efforts that would dilute the good commercial success that the team has seen thus far.
We'll take our next question from Mohit Bansal with Wells Fargo.
Congrats on the deal. So when we did our due diligence, there were a couple of topics which came across. So number one was that it takes a while for patients to realize the BMI benefit here and that could impact persistence. And then number two, the monitoring requirement with edema or not official requirement, but monitoring of edema, could be important given that this is a very complicated disease. So keeping those 2 things in mind, how do you think about the expansion of this drug beyond the KOL centers and then going into community, because that seemed to be a challenge when we spoke to KOLs last week or so.
Thanks. This is Kyle. I'll take the question here a bit, and I'll see if Sanjay has a couple of remarks to add.
I think when it comes to diazoxide and what we've seen thus far from the data set, I think it's important to appreciate that this is not a medicine for weight loss. This is a medicine that treats the hyperphagia that's associated with Prader-Willi syndrome. So as such, we're not looking for necessarily the opportunity to have patients lose weight here, although if you start patients younger at a lower BMI, you can maintain their weight over time, and that would be something that we would look at moving forward. So I think that's point number one.
On the other point, in terms of safety, if you will, we're talking about fluid retention in hyperglycemia primarily. These are things that are monitorable and also reversible if needed by discontinuing or lowering the dose. So these are things that we'll be looking at moving forward.
Certainly, there's going to be a very significant education component here. Soleno has done a great job of starting that process, and we'll look to continue to evolve that. And when you're working in these rare disease spaces, you have to make sure that you're open to continuously learning and adapting your education over time. And these are things that we'll do to optimize messaging and hopefully allow us to reach even more patients as time moves along.
Let me ask Sanjay, if he has anything to add.
Thank you, Kyle. I just want to emphasize that this medication impacts a defining symptom of the disease, which is hyperphagic behavior or food-seeking behaviors. And this has enormous impact on both the patient and the family completely independent of weight. What was interesting when we looked at the clinical data was that weight was actually prevented in terms of increase. So that was actually very reassuring as well. And then obviously, when thinking about a safety profile, we're looking at efficacy and also the severity of the disease. So we're very comfortable with the risk benefit profile that we've seen.
We'll move next to David Amsellem with Piper Sandler.
So can you comment on overall access, the mix between Medicaid and commercially covered patients? And how you're feeling based on your diligence regarding access and the extent to which you think there needs to be more improvements in the access paradigm once you take over the asset.
I appreciate the question. Eric, would you want to comment on this?
Yes. This is -- so far, what we've seen is that access has been really great in terms of getting prescriptions reimbursed. The majority of these patients are either commercially insured or via Medicaid. That is a similar payer mix to what we see with CRENESSITY in CAH and similar to what we've seen with CRENESSITY, they've had a very high rate of reimbursed prescriptions in 2025. So we feel good about the reimbursement.
Certainly, it appears that payers recognize the severity of hyperphagia and PWS. And thus far, they've been reimbursing these claims, initial fills as well as reauthorizations. And so that's something you have to monitor closely as you go forward with the launch. But so far, so great with VYKAT XR. So that's part of the enthusiasm that we have and why we feel like this certainly has blockbuster potential.
And at this time, I would like to turn it back to Kyle Gano for any additional or closing remarks.
Thanks, again, everyone, for joining this morning. It's really been an exciting time here at Neurocrine to talk about VYKAT XR, a first-in-class medicine for the hyperphagia associated with Prader-Willi syndrome. It really sits nicely with what we've done with CRENESSITY and INGREZZA, also first-in-class medicines and our commitment to bring transformative medicines forward for patients and their families.
If I could just leave you with a couple of thoughts. We believe that VYKAT XR is well on its way to become a blockbuster medicine. It has durable revenue that will continue, we believe, out to the mid-2040s, and it is an excellent strategic fit, as you've heard from many of us here this morning. So we're excited to continue this dialogue with you all as we move through this period of time as we close on this transaction. But it's exciting day for Neurocrine, the Prader-Willi Syndrome community and shareholders. We look forward to catching you -- catching up with you all in the coming weeks. Goodbye for now.
Thank you. This brings us to the end of today's meeting. We appreciate your time and participation. You may now disconnect.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc., Soleno Therapeutics, Inc. - M&A Call
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc., Soleno Therapeutics, Inc. - M&A Call
🎯 Key Message
- Narrative Neurocrine to acquire Soleno Therapeutics for about $2.9B in an all-cash deal at $53 per Soleno share, adding VYKAT XR to a trio of first-in-class medicines. The move aims to accelerate revenue growth, diversify the portfolio, and is expected to be accretive in 2026, financed with cash on hand and modest debt.
🧭 Strategic Highlights
- Product VYKAT XR is FDA-approved for Prader-Willi hyperphagia; US launch in 2025 generated ~$190M revenue for Soleno in 2025 (including $92M in Q4).
- Portfolio Brings Neurocrine to three first-in-class medicines: INGREZZA, CRENESSITY and VYKAT XR, expanding rare-disease leadership.
- Capital All-cash deal with no financing condition; modest debt contemplated; Europe not planned now, focus remains US-first post-close.
- IP Robust patent estate extending into the mid-2040s, supporting long-term exclusivity.
🚀 New Information
- Deal details Definitive agreement to acquire Soleno; tender offer at $53 per share (~$2.9B EV); close timing not disclosed; integration plans underway.
- Launch momentum VYKAT XR has shown strong early uptake in the US; contributes to immediate growth potential alongside INGREZZA and CRENESSITY.
- Geography Europe not part of the initial plan; potential future consideration only after US launch milestones.
❓ Analyst Q&A
- Competition & persistence Management stressed diligence and that VYKAT XR sits as best/first-in-class in PWS, with a durable profile supported by long-term data.
- Europe & scope Europe currently not planned; evaluation may occur later, with a US-first launch priority.
- Access & safety Emphasis on payer reimbursement stability, education for providers, and monitoring of safety signals; multiple questions on real-world persistence and start-form targets were acknowledged but not resolved pre-close.
⚡ Bottom Line
- Impact The Soleno acquisition strengthens Neurocrine’s leadership in endocrinology and rare disease by adding VYKAT XR to a three-pronged, first-in-class portfolio. It is expected to be immediately accretive to revenue in 2026, funded with cash and modest debt, and supported by a robust IP position into the mid-2040s. Near-term risks include integration, regulatory timing, and competition in PWS.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Stifel 2026 Virtual CNS Forum
1. Question Answer
All right. Thanks very much. It's my pleasure to be moderating this chat with Kyle Gano, CEO of Neurocrine; and Todd Tushla, Head of IR, who I made the joke is also moonlighting as an aircraft controller right now.
I thought you were going to talk about my green shirt for St. Patrick's Day.
You look great, man. I like the shirt. But yes, sounds good. I mean, I think, obviously, anyone listening here knows the story well. But Kyle, do you want to just kind of give us a couple of minute sort of snapshot of 2026 as a big year for Neurocrine, and then we can do Q&A. So that sounds good?
Yes, it sounds great. Thanks, Paul. And thanks for Stifel for having us here this afternoon. So yes, if I look at 2026 as we exited the prior year, we're entering this year, with a great deal of enterprise-wide momentum, and this comes on the heels of an expanding and diversified portfolio that we're executing on this year with an exquisite focus on delivering a lot of data next year in 2027, Phase II and Phase III trials, which would really represent the first year of many years to come where we expect data flow just like we're anticipating for 2027.
It's not to say there's a lot going on this year, but it is one of execution and performance. Last year, if you look at the commercial side of the business, we had just north of $2.8 billion in revenue. That's about 22% year-to-year growth, which is outstanding. That comes with the benefit of CRENESSITY adding to our topline each year now moving forward. And as a good reminder, when I talked about CRENESSITY and our revenue, it's our ability to diversify over INGREZZA, overtime, we had about 12% revenue diversification on top of INGREZZA last year in 2025. So a great way to think about the company as being a multiproduct, diversified biopharmaceutical company moving forward.
Just to tick off a few things about our individual commercial products, INGREZZA, eighth year into commercialization. We saw $2.51 billion in revenue. That's about a 9% year-to-year growth, double-digit volume growth on the year, record NRx over multiple quarters. It was a great year by all accounts. Little bit of a hit on gross to net there on our net price per script with some contracts that we took on in 2025, but it makes up -- we make it up this year with a really clean year from a contracting perspective and access perspective.
This year, we've guided to $2.7 billion to $2.8 billion in revenue. And we've got the focus here in a couple of different areas. I just alluded to, one, taking full advantage of the access that we acquired last year throughout 2026, leveraging our sales force expansion, which will be live in Q2. And there, we'll be looking at going deeper with existing prescribers as well as meeting new prescribers now on the antipsychotic side of the business, we've got about 30% new prescribers over the past couple of years that we weren't calling on. So we're able to reach those for the first time. And then also other sales initiatives, including a new DTC campaign that will come out later this year. So we're really excited about the opportunity that's out there. Good reminder, 10% of the 800,000 patients or Ono VMAT2 inhibitor. It's a lot of growth out there that remains, and we've got IP out to 2038 to support all the growth that we see in the product.
For CRENESSITY, switching gears a little bit, first, commercial -- first year of commercial sale of $300 million in revenue last year. We had about 10% under care of CRENESSITY of the entire CH market. So that's a great milestone, but it also means there's 90% of the market still ahead for us. And by all accounts, every measure that we look at, we exceeded all of our internal expectations this past year, starting with reimbursement rates that were high, 80% of dispensed scripts were reimbursed. We saw a very good persistence throughout the course of the year, and it really sets us up well for a strong second year 2026.
We're looking to continue supporting the educational needs of physicians and patients to hopefully change the standard of care in CH just much -- or much like we've done with INGREZZA and tardive dyskinesia. We've got plenty of time to do that with IP out to the early 2040s. So that's the commercial pipeline. And then we've got an industry-leading neuropsychiatry portfolio, osavampator and direclidine will deliver Phase III data in 2027, in particular, the second half of 2027 and early '28 for direclidine. We've got a number of Phase II programs that will read out over a similar time frame. NBI-570 is our M1, M4 dual agonist in schizophrenia right now. And of course, our VMAT2 efforts in terms of getting a next-generation inhibitor are moving along the pipeline nicely as well and NBI-890 is in a Phase II trial that will read out towards the end of next year.
So a lot on the commercial front, a lot on the pipeline. I'll just -- I'll stop there in terms of the highlights. We really are focusing on execution this year to deliver the data across our Phase II and Phase III programs in 2027.
Yes. Okay. Great. Maybe as it relates to the INGREZZA guide, right? So I think you guys said that price is going to be flat. Is that right?
Yes. So just to recap on the guidance for this year, $2.7 billion to $2.8 billion. When we look at the guidance, whether it's this year or years past, obviously, we look at trends leading up to the time we're having those discussions internally, but it really comes down to the pace and cadence of NRxs as well as what we're seeing on TRx the prior year. And then the timing of sales force and other marketing initiatives that happened during the course of the year. When it comes to specifics on NRx in particular, when we think about this year, just a couple of things to call out. We'll be looking at about a 4% to 5% price decline year-to-year for the expanded access that we have now to be maintaining that throughout the course of 2026.
So that 4% to 5% decline is relative to what we saw exiting 2025. And then in Q1, recall -- Q1 of this year, recall if we reflect back in Q1 of 2025, the differences in our business is that we brought on a couple of contracts. We did take a hit on the net price per script. So on a Q1-to-Q1 basis, that decline on a net price per script is about 10%. So we have those, I'd say, a little bit of a headwind there throughout the course of this year about 4% to 5%. You do see...
Is that due Kyle? I thought at one point...
So I'll just clarify, I think, Paul, I know where you're coming from. It was flat coming out of the second half of the year of 2025. So we had entered into those contracts over the second half of the year, coming out of the end...
But on a blended basis from the whole year is where you're talking...
That's right.
There you go on a blended basis...
I think that's helpful context for everyone's model.
And to repeat, the biggest hit -- like Kyle said, the biggest headwind is the anniversary heading into Q1, where you're going to have somewhere around 10% price hit, but that recovers a bit into Q2 and then you're on even ground in the second half of the year.
Yes. Yes. Other than that, I mean, we're looking at another strong year. We anticipate double-digit volume growth this year just as we saw last year. And with the price per script relatively flat over the course of the year, as we just described, expecting a nice strong year for the brand.
Yes. Yes. Okay. On -- just looking ahead to 2027. Do you feel like there's a lot of uncertainty on where the price of INGREZZA might be going? Like do you feel like you're going to get more information and how plans are going to be dealing with the Austedo MFP or -- because I think on the market side and the investor side, this is seen as a big source of variance, but I'm wondering if you also see it as a big source of variance.
Yes. I mean the way I think about the IRA, there's really 3 periods here when we think about Neurocrine. There's 2026 or what's left of it, when both Teva and Neurocrine are not in the period where either company is observing or implementing an MFP there's '27 and '28 where Teva, our competitor in this space is -- has their MFP implemented. And then there's 2029 when Neurocrine has its MFP implemented. So this year, relatively normal year for us. We've got great access, 70% of TD and HD patients are under the contracts that we have with plans today. So it's a really good place for us to be. That's why I go back to my earlier remarks and maximizing that now in combination with the sales force expansion that we have ongoing.
So that's good. When it comes to '27 and '28, that's the Teva MFP implementation period where we're not in the same situation. And when we look at what happened with Teva and Austedo, we feel that they landed in a pretty good spot, right, within the range that we had planned on internally in terms of their discount to their 2024 WACC, which is about 38% or which was 38%. That's a pretty good spot for us, and we know that we can manage through that and can still see really good growth for the brand. And when we think about our actions and our own activities this year, we're not expecting any midterm or midyear adds like we saw in 2025, it's stable now this year.
So what our focus and attention is, is negotiating with those Medicare plans now for '27. And those things or those discussions are ongoing, and we'll have an update on where they land or where we land with them later this year. Again, that will be for contracting for 2027. But we believe that there'll be a place for adjacent MFP products in these Medicare plans moving forward. We've already heard and see that from other brands that are out there today. And we know that we'll be able to manage through the next year and '28 quite well. And then we have our own MFP Imputation and IRA activities that will be supporting our 2029 year.
Yes. Okay. Makes sense, Kyle. As it relates to CRENESSITY, how are you setting the expectation of what can be a good outcome this year? And I think it's -- I think on the Wall Street side, like everyone knows that the ad rate is going to settle into some sort of steady state number, but the question is when is that going to happen? It feels like with -- this is one of those launches where people are going to be emotionally sensitive to very small differences in start forms. But how are you kind of like helping people think about like where this hits the trajectory now that we're past the bolus.
I have two cents on that. The start form piece was a big point of the Q4 call for exactly the reasons you highlighted. But I think if you're close to orphan launches, it's very typical to have a nonlinear path for new patient start forms. That's what we expected. That's what we saw. The new patient start forms internally beat our expectations with each passing quarter in 2025. And so to have that get to 10% of the patients in year 1 is a super strong start. And I think our expectations are if you combine what we're calling steady ads. And so I get that question quite a bit from Street, what do you mean study? And by study, we look at it weekly, in 2025, not providing any guidance for this year.
But for 2025, what you saw were double-digit adds throughout the course of a quarter. Now they varied across Q1 through Q4. But we never had an instance where you put up a 0 in 1 week and something like a 50. It will be nice, consistent double digits. And as long as you continue that into this year and combine that with what Kyle mentioned from the outset, very strong compliance and persistence at least through year 1, in line with what we saw with the open-label extension, combined with strong reimbursement, I think we're going to get -- I think this is the year, perhaps this quarter, hopefully, where people have less emotion about the new patient starts and you're looking at the trend line in net revenue, which is going to be an upward slope.
Yes. Yes. Okay. I'm always prepared for like a first quarter for Neurocrine that is a little confusing on either like INGREZZA or re-auth or something like that. Anything you're selling weeks? And then I'm always prepared for the 2Q set up to be great. But anything we need to keep in mind with 1Q and any complexities in sort of interpreting the upcoming quarter?
We know for INGREZZA. We go through the reauthorization quarter. There's always noise around that...
Is that better now that you guys have paid up for all this access?
There's still the piece of patients having to go through their process of getting their prescription refilled. That doesn't change. They still go through that dynamic each year. And we see that across all specialty medicines. It's not something that's unique to us. In fact, we often look at other branded antipsychotics and see what their patterns look like and not surprisingly VMAT2 inhibitors and antipsychotics kind of move together in terms of their ups and downs on an annual basis. But so you have reauthorizations through Q1 for INGREZZA, and then you have the pay down for commercial for the commercial plans for CRENESSITY in Q1. That gives you a little bit of a gross to net hit, but that works itself through in Q1 as well.
So we don't give any other intra-quarter guidance beyond that, but I'm looking for good years for both INGREZZA and CRENESSITY. And I think we touched a bit on the ebbs and flows and orphan drug launches, and I'm sure you've done this work, too, Paul, if you look at orphan drug launches that have some of the redeeming qualities of CRENESSITY, we're certainly on our way to blockbuster status category based on first year performance. We want to make sure we just continue focusing on that for patients, and I think one at a good place.
Yes. Yes. Okay. Very good. On the AMPA-PAM, so you have this great Phase II data, you're in Phase III. And I think -- the discounts that investors seem to give it are just one, the sort of MDD is hard discount and two, the dose response dynamic, it's like people want things to fit neatly into a nice box. But you obviously have looked at tons of MDD data sets from your time in BD and probably others maybe even at Neurocrine before I covered the company. But like what makes you so confident that this is like a replicable data set and that you know your dose going into Phase III.
Well, first of all, I will -- I'll take and appreciate that there's going to be uncertainty for any program in psychiatry. I think it's just the history of the space warrants the right level of concern because you have Phase II trials that seem to look good in Phase III, they don't necessarily replicate. There are things that we're doing to ensure that give us the highest possible chance of succeeding, but I appreciate that history. I guess I'd point to 2 things -- 3 things when it comes to our own program.
Number one is that we're working already in a validated pathway and that validated pathways by esketamine and associated in the receptor antagonist. You can go back 50 years through things like PCP that run through the same NMDA pathway. It's one that's been well paved. So you have that confidence knowing that you're leaning into out of the gate. Number two, we've also been part of that validation with our Phase II data in and of itself. Now where our AMPA-PAM or potentiator operates as downstream with the NDA receptor, but it requires the same messenger, if you will, to activate the system, which is a glutamate and that's what we're utilizing here moving forward. And then the last one is that our own Phase II data was spectacular.
I know we often describe an inverted or a irregular dose response. But in our view, both doses worked. This is a small signal-seeking study, not necessarily trying to get a p-value on each of the doses that we used, but that could have been probable. That would have been the case if we would have had a larger sample size here across both our 1 and 3-milligram doses. But overall, a very robust result. We move forward with the 1 milligram, but just to recap the efficacy here, we saw efficacy that improved from day 28 to 56. So there's an improvement -- or there's a robustness that continues to expand in terms of the efficacy magnitude over time, which is compelling suggests that the longer that you're on the medicine, the better you'll do. But at the day 56, we saw very robust results of about a 4.5 point MADRS improvement and 7.5 points at day 56, with an effect size that ranges from 0.55 to 0.75.
Of all the medicines that I've reviewed over the years, either in our pipeline or externally, I've never seen that robust of a result. So we're quite pleased with that in addition to all those additional things about working in a validated pathway that gives us comfort. So the gold in for us in Phase II is to replicate that signal. And to do that, we try to lean into things like simplicity and trial design and also trying to not go too far from where we were in our Phase II trial. So in this Phase II study, we used 2 doses, about 40 to 45 subjects each versus about 80 subjects on placebo.
In our Phase III trial, we're going to be 1:1 active to placebo and about 100 subjects of active versus 100 on placebo. So we really are dialing in to maximize both the signal and the statistics here in the Phase III trial design with a similar number of sites, similar geographies, similar team that's doing the oversight and that should ensure that we are giving this program the best chance to succeed.
I'll just add, what's torpedoed a lot of these programs and AMPA have been the safety margin, right? And here, we've studied this molecule up to 18x the dose in SAD/MAD studies versus the 1 mg got a 15 and so the safety and tolerability profile in the Phase II SAVITRI study was great. This seems to be behaving nicely on top of the efficacy that you're going to get.
Have there -- like some of these other AMPA-PAMs that have run into seizure issues. Have any of them shown like clinical proof of concept in mood disorders that would help corroborate this result?
No. And the reason why is, is that typically -- and this is a little bit nuanced, when you see a seizure or an animal model or in tox studies, Typically, you're giving a tenfold haircut on your margins by the agency. So they're never able to push the dose to the efficacious range in terms of exposures in Phase II to show an effect. And that's just been a very unfortunate kind of draw back on molecules of this mechanism. In fact, this is the second one that Takeda brought to the market. Recall this is a program that we in-licensed from Takeda. And they did an outstanding job really profiling molecules in this space, not only their own, but others to really drive a dial into a molecule that behaves like a potentiator or a positive allosteric modulator versus an agonist that would over activate the AMPA target in the system, and that gives rise to the seizure findings.
It's a good point to mention here the AMPA antagonist saw the opposite of what we have actually prevent seizures. That's Fycompa. So it makes sense that if you overactate the system, you would cause seizures. And that's been the challenge of our industry is to get to potentiators or PAMs.
Yes. Okay. And so you're running a huge program here, multiple studies. The first is reading out 2027.
Second half of '27, all of them will read out...
All 3 of them in '27.
All of them will read out in the second half of '27. And is that 2 parallel group and one randomized withdrawal? There are 3 placebo-controlled trials and one randomized withdrawal. The randomized withdrawal study we have one in the direclidine program as well, really help more from a payer standpoint than anything else. We'll have all the placebo-controlled study to result so well in advance of that one. But obviously, in psychiatry, related to how we started the discussion is risky, and we have a more traditional program in terms of the number of studies that we're working on here, doing 3 and looking to get at least to that hit positive.
Yes. Okay. Okay. Do you think this IIB has any regulatory utility that you already completed?
Our work out of the gate when we started this Phase II trial or the SAVITRI trial was that it would not be a pivotal trial. It's a smaller exploratory signal-seeking study. We're really trying to magnify what we could see in the MADRS. A lot of the other measures that you'd want in a placebo-controlled trial in Phase III for payers or for other means they're fully exploiting the profile of the molecule were in this Phase II trial. So it's not something that we've planned on leaning on. And to that end, as we mentioned on the timing of the Phase III trials, they're all going to be more or less reading out on top of each other.
So the value of a leading in 2 Phase IIb trial or Phase II trial may be less given what we've got going on right now. I know that a lot of the questions that we received in this area pertains to the openness right now, maybe of the FDA of looking at a plausible mechanism to bring in...
Who is asking you that?
One pivotal trial. I don't know if that's going to be a case here, but I'm just acknowledging that's there. I know a lot of other companies are trying to figure out what that means.
Right. I don't know, to me, I'm just -- my thought is like these parallel group studies can fail if you already have one in the bag. And then you're doing a randomized withdrawal study, which has a good chance right? Like you're already far along the way, right? But, yes, okay. People have talked a lot about the muscarinics. I actually wanted to ask you just quickly you have a next-gen VMAT2 that no one really talks about, right? And look at what AUSTEDO XR has kind of done to that franchise. How are you framing that opportunity? Like is there something like an XR AUSTEDO analog with the INGREZZA franchise with your next gen?
Well, it's been really difficult to get something that's been -- that has a better profile than INGREZZA. It's once a day has a lot of redeeming qualities. I mean the things that we're working on for the next-gen really are working at the margins of things that we -- that someone could poke for INGREZZA. But the overarching theme for the next-generation molecules are potency, once-daily dosing and low total daily dose. And the goal here is to drive an additional product that would be married to the oral that would be a long-acting injectable. You'd be surprised how much we hear from physicians of desiring that type of formulation to help with compliance in those patients side-by-side with their antipsychotics.
And that's been something that has been the top priority for us in a next-generation approach. And we've got 2 shots at doing that now with NBI-890 and NBI-675. 890 is in the lead and just started a Phase II trial in tardive dyskinesia, and we'll have data on that second half of next year as well, goes back to our data-rich 2027. But the idea there is that you'll get the exposures that are commensurate with efficacy and you'll be able to start a long-acting injectable program around that, just using that exposure range as a guide.
Yes. Okay. And then on the muscarinics side, I think there's been enough conversation for now just on kind of interrogating that the M4 data set you had. Where are you at the M1/M4. And do you feel like that might have a higher POS? Like do you like the dual more?
Yes. No. So we are very excited, obviously, for direclidine. We wouldn't be investing in it in the way that we are if we didn't think it had a lot of redeeming qualities over the current competition in the space, which is Cobenfy, but what we want to answer ourselves and we'll see here in early 2028, but the dual molecule that we have in a Phase II trial and now for schizophrenia is NBI-570. And there's been, as you've heard from us and others, this concept that M1 is for cognition and in-force for psychosis, but can they benefit each other in a complementary way in either one of those areas if you're looking at a single indication.
So by that, I mean, would you get more efficacy by adding M1 on top of them for into a disease of psychosis like schizophrenia. Or would be adding M4 on top of an M1 give you some benefit in a patient population with Alzheimer's. So these are things that we're going to be able to answer. And we see that from our Phase I studies all of our agonists have completely different profiles. I mean one of the things that's nice to see is that all of them are going to be able to be dosed in Phase II and Phase III without any formulation work once a day, but different profiles overall, we'll be able to see what those look like in the different patient populations. The dual is a little bit ahead of the other molecules. So it's in that Phase II trial.
Now for schizophrenia, we also have another type of dual different ratios of M1 and M4 in NBI-569 that we've earmarked for Alzheimer's disease psychosis and then we have a more traditional M1 agonist in development for Alzheimer's disease cognition.
How fast could you move Kyle with the dual in ADP, assuming this -- we see a signal from Cobenfy or something like that?
We'd be able to move into a broader Phase II trial probably beginning of next year. What we're doing right now in Phase I, which we think is going to be a differentiator in and of itself is show good safety and tolerability in the elderly population with 569. That will also help us triangulate to dose in dose selection for our larger Phase II trial next year.
Yes, yes. Okay. Anything else you want to highlight that you feel like everyone's overlooking or not appreciating that you are enthusiastic about?
I'd highlight probably 2. You captured one here, the next-generation VMAT2 program. I'd also highlight our next-generation program for CAH, which is NBIP-1435. That's another program that's going to move rapidly through the clinic, given our experience in CAH. It's in Phase I now, but we're moving into Phase II/III later this year, and that's something that could be a near-term commercial opportunity over the next 4-, 5-year period and offer something different over CRENESSITY in much the same way.
What's the mechanism of that?
It's a CRF1 antagonist, but it's a long-acting injectable. So it is offering something completely different than oral and we're excited about that one. And then related to CRF, we also have our diversified view of moving from R1 as an antagonist to R2 in CRF in metabolic disease, in particular, BC, that will deliver data in patients in the next year as well. So we'll see how that approach works and some things that I know that people are interested to see.
Yes. Well, great. Well, thank you, guys. I really appreciate it. It's always good to see you, Kyle, and Todd. You always make me chuckle. So it's good to see you too, man.
Don't forget about the strong financial profile. So if somebody is out there. It's time to invest now.
There you go. There you go. I think our story is simple, Paul. It's a growing blockbuster, one in the making, an expanding diversified pipeline, a lot of data in 2027, sustainable innovation engine and a strong financial profile position just like Todd mentioned.
Yes. Yes. Okay. Well, great, guys. Thank you so much. Have a good rest of your day, and we'll talk to you soon.
You as well.
Thanks, Paul.
Thanks, everyone, for listening.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Stifel 2026 Virtual CNS Forum
📌 Key Message
- Strategic focus: Neurocrine is executing a multi-year growth plan centered on INGREZZA, CRENESSITY, and a data-rich pipeline aiming for 2027–28 readouts and multiple Phase II/III results.
- Financial base: 2025 revenue ≈ $2.8B with INGREZZA at $2.51B; 2026 INGREZZA guidance of about $2.7–$2.8B; CRENESSITY contributing early but with ample market opportunity ahead (roughly 90% of CH market still untapped).
- Pipeline momentum: Next-gen VMAT2, AMPA-PAM programs, CAH efforts and M1/M4 duals form a broad, data-rich slate targeting meaningful catalysts in 2027–2028.
🎯 Strategic Highlights
- Commercial expansion: CRENESSITY launched with $300M in year one and 80% reimbursement on dispensed scripts; 10% market share in CH with 90% still to address; sales force expansion live in 2026 and a new DTC campaign planned.
- IngREZZA trajectory: About 4–5% net price decline in 2026 due to expanded access, plus double-digit volume growth; ongoing contract optimization and broader prescriber reach ( ~30% more new prescribers).
- Pipeline cadence: AMPA-PAM program with three Phase III trials slated for the second half of 2027; VMAT2 next-generation program (NBI‑890) in Phase II with data in 2H 2027; CAH program NBIP‑1435 moving from Phase I to Phase II/III later this year, plus R1/R2 CRF programs with near-term data.
🧭 New Information
- Commercial geometry: 70% of TD/HD patients are under current contracts; CRENESSITY’s pricing/sales dynamics are tracking toward a steady-state backdrop for 2027–28.
- Readouts timeline: All three AMPA-PAM Phase III trials are expected in the second half of 2027, with a randomized withdrawal component included for payer insights.
- Next-gen focus: VMAT2 program aims for a long-acting injectable companion to oral INGREZZA; NBIP‑1435 offers a long-acting CRF1 antagonist approach with potential near-term commercial potential over the next 4–5 years.
❓ Analyst Q&A
- Pricing/policy headwinds: Management reiterated a 4–5% 2026 net price decline for INGREZZA due to expanded access, with one-time Q1 2026 dynamics offsetting later quarters; ongoing MFP/IRA discussions for 2027–28 and 2029 timing remain key variables.
- AMPA-PAM regulatory path: They are not pursuing a single pivotal now; three Phase III trials in 2027 plus a randomized withdrawal study, designed to maximize signal and payer acceptance while managing risk in psychiatry.
- CRENESSITY trajectory: Emphasis on steady patient starts, payer access, and education; expect a gradual ramp rather than a rapid “bolus” as the orphan-adjacent growth profile plays out.
⚡ Bottom Line
Neurocrine is reinforcing a diversified growth engine: a sizeable, expanding INGREZZA franchise, a ramping CRENESSITY launch, and a rich pipeline with multiple late-stage catalysts expected in 2027. The path to 2027–28 hinges on policy/payer dynamics, continued commercial execution, and timely Phase III readouts for AMPA-PAM and VMAT2 programs. If the pipeline delivers as hoped and payer headwinds stabilize, NBIX could see meaningful upside beyond its current earnings trajectory.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Leerink Global Healthcare Conference 2026
1. Question Answer
Thanks for joining us. I'm Marc Goodman, one of the Biopharma Analyst at Leerink, and it's great to have Neurocrine here. We have Matt Abernethy, who's the CFO; and Todd Tushla, who's the IR guy. Thank you very much for joining us.
Matt, I'll give you a chance just to make an opening comment, maybe not too long, but just kind of set the stage.
I'll try to run out the clock if that's okay. And we'll pivot a little bit throughout this presentation. How about that, Marc? We will be making forward-looking statements. So we'll direct you to our latest SEC filings for the related risk factors and uncertainties associated with our company and then also our industry. Now that we have that fun fact behind us. We're at a great spot, Marc. We had -- how long was that dinner last night about 2 hours?
Yes, because they didn't serve the food very quickly.
Yes. They were still catching the salmon. But to be at a spot where you have 2 approved products at this point is just incredible. You have $2.7 billion to $2.8 billion guide for the year for INGREZZA. INGREZZA has actually been on the market 9 years now. And to be at a place to have double-digit growth still is just quite significant. We recently expanded the sales force. The sales force will be in place starting the beginning of Q2, but was at a national sales meeting a few weeks ago and just the energy is high to be able to help these patients with tardive dyskinesia. So a lot of excitement there.
Our second approved product really transformed the company, I would say, and that was with CRENESSITY for congenital adrenal hyperplasia. It's the first product approved in over 70 years for these patients. The only option for these patients prior to CRENESSITY's approval was just to take high-dose steroids. So there wasn't a good option. And in the first year of launch, I think we had over $300 million in sales, 2,000 patients being helped and that really sets us up well for continued growth into the future.
I think I read a recent IQVIA report that would put this launch actually within the top 10% of all rare disease launches of all time and so a big shout out to the team for being able to execute in that way.
With INGREZZA and CRENESSITY, we're able to take that cash and reinvest it back into the business. We put around 35% of our revenue back into R&D. That's a capital allocation philosophy for us. We have 2 late-stage Phase III trials. The first one is in schizophrenia. The second one is in depression. We started those trials last year and we intend to read those out in 2027 and 2028. In addition to that, we highlighted at R&D Day, all the progress that Jude Onyia and team have been making. They're way ahead of schedule. But for us, as we think about creating a major company here that has a market cap of $30 billion to $50 billion, you have to have great commercial products, and you also have to have an internal R&D engine that can sustain your R&D pipeline into the future. And I think that, that's what Jude and team are creating.
On the financial front, of course, being CFO, I like this part. We have over $2.5 billion of cash. We've accumulated a couple of billion in cash over the last handful of years. We've been able to pay down our convertible debt. And we have no debt at this point. So $2.5 billion in cash, no debt, 30% non-GAAP operating income. And so cash flow is quite good, even with all the investments that we're making right now.
So we have a lot that we're looking forward to, and I feel quite fortunate and honestly, Marc, to be sitting here as CFO of Neurocrine.
So when you think about this year, what's most exciting to you? What are you focused on?
Well, what's most exciting? I think there's really 2 things that pop out to me. The first one is with CRENESSITY. CRENESSITY is near and dear to my personal heart. Many of you guys might know this, but my son has classic CAH. He's one of the 20,000 patients in the United States that have CAH. And I didn't know anybody who was working on a medicine for CAH until Neurocrine reached out to me 8.5 years ago about the CFO role. And so for me, the journey to move my family across the country to San Diego and then you fast forward 7 or 8 years later, and there is an approval for my son, that just is incredible. And so fun to be part of a company that's helping patients with CAH. And my son actually was the first commercial patient on product. So he's got the longest experience base.
So I would just say, I feel quite blessed to be part of a company like this. I was at the sales meeting a few weeks ago, and the team is just ecstatic. The stories that we're hearing in terms of patient benefits, the stories as it relates to what the clinicians are thinking. There's no doubt in my mind that this can ultimately be a blockbuster medicine. And I'm sure we can get into more of the attributes of why we're bullish on the prospects for CRENESSITY this year. But for me, that's number one, and I know that's more personal and biased but a lot of optimism for this year.
The second one is osavampator. Osavampator is an input potentiator that's being studied in major depression. I think we can all relate to patients that have depression and need a better option. This had tremendous Phase II data. And we're now executing those trials and ensuring that patient enrollment is done in a quality manner so that when we get the data in 2027, you're not going to be sitting wondering, was this a failed trial, you'd rather be a failed drug if the data does read out negatively. But we have a lot of reason for hope. And I'd say those are the top 2 items when you say, what am I most focused on or most excited about? I would lead with those 2.
Let's talk about CRENESSITY just for a minute and talk about the -- just some of the numbers. I think one of the things that we're always focused on with these types of launches is where are the patients. And so talk about where these patients are and the patient -- the 2,000 patients that are on product today, where are they? And I guess the context is centers of excellence versus the community. Just give us a sense of what's going on there.
Yes, there's 20,000 patients with classic CAH that's what our best estimate is at that time. You also have 60,000 to 80,000 patients with what's called nonclassic CAH or what they've been coded that way. So part of the patient finding exercises is being able to sift through because there's not a specific ICD-10 code for classic CAH is trying to parse through classic versus nonclassic. But when we look at the marketplace, there's about 8 -- like full on centers of excellence accredited by the CARES Foundation. And there's another 20 or so that you would call what I call almost the COE. They don't quite fit the full criteria, but they see a lot of CAH patients.
So in that, call it, 30 institutions, you have about 15% of the patient population, so about 3,000 patients. The rest are spread amongst different regional endocrinologists in different even primary care physicians and for women, OB/GYNs. So you have a disbursement outside of that concentration of 15% is where the patients are at right now.
When you take a step into where did we get the first 2,000 patients from? Somebody asked me recently, like, wow, you've tapped out of the centers of excellence. You got most of your patients from there. The next leg of this lift is going to be so much harder than it was first. And yes, with every rare disease launch, you have patients who raise their hands or clinicians who are fast adopters upfront. But I really do want to reflect that less than 50% of the 2,000 patients came from centers of excellence.
So you still have a significant amount of opportunity to gain access to patients at centers of excellence. And so as we look through our growth prospects, we have a lot of depth left still at COEs, a lot a depth with those clinicians who have written this first year. And then we also have people who have not written yet. And so a lot of effort is still going to go behind this launch, but we're very optimistic.
Talk about the COEs who've not written yet. And why have they not written yet?
Well, it's a good question for them. But what I would say is these folks feel like they're very skilled in the art to treat patients with CAH. They've dedicated their entire life's work towards that. So for those patients or for those COEs who haven't written with much depth at this point, I think the feedback is, one, I want to make sure this is safe in the long run for these patients. I also want to understand for pediatrics, you're really caring about the progression of the disease, in particular, with androgen control and how those that then translate to accelerating bone age versus chronological age.
So I think part of what's holding COEs back is just simply wanting to see outcomes of how patients are doing on therapy. And thankfully, we have a very nice open-label extension study. We've shared some with investment community, but at a conference later this year at ENDO, we'll be really highlighting, especially on pediatrics, the improvement that patients are seeing in growth velocity and bone age advancement relative to chronological age. And so that will be a big event for us to be able to ensure that we can share the data that support this being efficacious, but then also safe. Any time you're talking about putting a medicine on board a young child, you're wondering about safety. And so far, it's been pretty much right to label and the experiences that we're hearing back from clinicians has been quite strong.
So how many doctors have written so far?
A little bit over 1,000. So there's about 8,000 clinicians in our call universe, you could basically say if you have 3,000 to 5,000 patients that are ultimately prescribing, that gets you more to the peak penetration would be. When we -- also coming out of the last call, there's been a lot of questions around the step-down that we've seen in enrollment forms each quarter. And when we go back and look at all the rare disease launches, that's not surprising. There's ebbs and flows of new patients being put on to therapy. This is one that is only prescribed as patients actually go into the clinician's office 1 or 2 times per year. And ultimately, those who got on medicine early, it takes 6 to 12 months to see the benefit of what those patients are seeing and experiencing.
So I don't think it's abnormal to see ebbs and flows but still what you're asking is, number one, does the medicine work? Number two, is it safe? And then from a company perspective, are we getting reimbursement? So what we've been surprised to the upside on are that feedback has been the drug is working as advertised, it's safe, and we have very strong reimbursement at this point. So with those characteristics and studying even what other rare disease launches have ultimately done, peak penetration of between 30% and 50% is the median of what you see rare disease launches get to. And I don't see any reason why we couldn't get into that ZIP code given the efficacy and safety and even some of the KOLs and clinicians have said that they believe 80%, 8-0 percent of patients with classic CAH could benefit from a medicine like CRENESSITY.
So a lot of excitement. And I think when you accumulate patients over time, this ultimately becomes a very nice and big drug for the company.
So you started to talk about reimbursement. Just give us a sense of the evolution of the reimbursement over year 1 and what's going to happen in year 2?
Yes. So when we launched the medicine, I think we conditioned the Street that we would have most patients going on free drug the beginning of launch. And then over time, it would progress into a reimbursed script. The opposite was true. And I think that, that was because, number one, we had a great pharmacy partner and PANTHERx. They're very skilled at the art here.
The second piece is, I think as you talk to plans and commercial plans, these are complex patients and it's pretty easy to understand high-dose steroids aren't good for patients over the course of their entire life. And since 70% of these patients are commercial, what we ultimately found is this is being managed through an exceptions process, each claim. And we've been very encouraged by what we've seen. Typically after 3 to 6 months to get a 12-month authorization, you're typically looking for feedback from the clinician that androgens are being suppressed and that's about it.
So I don't think we could ask for anything better on the reimbursement side, and we had a team out engaging with payers for 6 months prior to launch. And so I think that's really what set the foundation for success.
Marc, you got like steady new patient adds in an unmet need area. You've got very strong compliance and persistence for existing patients, and you have very strong reimbursement. So all that sets up for a blockbuster product. I think internally, the question for us is it's similar to kind of where INGREZZA was, how big can this be? And we don't know yet, but it's going to be a blockbuster.
Right? So the reimbursement today is just not an issue, like patients.
Over 80% of prescriptions are being reimbursed.
And the ones that are -- it's just a small pushback?
Yes, or they have a -- yes, a small pushback. And even the actual ultimate patient percentage that get a reimbursement is higher than that 80% because that reflects those who maybe had a month or 2 of free medicine and then ultimately get on to reimbursed. But in those limited instances where insurance won't cover it for whatever reason, as long as they're a classic CAH patient, they get free medicine. And that's been the push to the clinicians that if you write a prescription of CRENESSITY, your patient is going to get CRENESSITY within the first 10 days.
And I think that's another piece when you brought up earlier, why have some COEs not written it, it's just the faith of are my patients really going to get on medicine and what is going to be the complexity of having to care for CRENESSITY being on board for the patients. And I think we've made it as easy as possible.
And for those COEs that haven't written, it's not a matter of if it's going to be when. But we'll get in there.
And just mention persistence again. So what are we talking about?
Very high along the lines with the open-label extension study. So you're talking north of 80%.
Yes, amazing. And one last thing is product awareness just to kind of come back to those 8,000 doctors. You mentioned 1,000 have written so far. So you've increased the sales force a little bit to kind of go after more. Just give us a sense of how many of those 8,000 have been touched so far. Did they even have product awareness, so to speak?
Yes. I mean a lot of these, if you're talking about 20,000 patients and you have 17,000 of those at non-COEs, they're spread out. And you have many doctors who see maybe one. And so what you're trying to do is figure out how do you engage with that clinician when they're only seeing one patient a year and they're sort of it's not the priority. How do you ensure you time of visit of product awareness with when that patient is coming in. So there's some pretty cool data-driven call point activities where you can potentially see, for example, in a de-identified way when labs might be being done and they're ordered by a clinician and that would maybe trigger going and making sure there's product awareness.
So I think the biggest aspect is, number one, just the feedback that is the drug working and hearing that, whether it's at ENDO or other endocrine society meetings and then timing and awareness visit in proximity to when the patient is actually coming in to keep it on the radar, I think, is part of the recipe here for continued progress, but all good. And I mean, it's exciting to be part of the -- it's exciting to be part of the company. There's -- in drug discovery, you have a really high rate of failure. We're experts at family and you have to celebrate the win. And for us to have 2 internally developed compounds make it all the way into the promise land and being selling well, it's quite encouraging.
And even hearing in the landscape positive data from other companies, biotech is an important vehicle to be able to help society. And I think there's been a lot of negative rhetoric that has put some pressure on the industry. But when you take a step back and think about transforming lives of people who struggle, it's very rewarding and very satisfying and very proud of where we're at as a company.
Let's flip gears to INGREZZA, $2.7 billion to $2.8 billion. Give us a sense of volume versus price in the expectation? And then break it down a little bit how you're thinking about each one.
Yes. So price is the most straightforward because we entered into contracting last year. throughout the year that expanded our access with Medicare Part D from around 40% to over 70% by the end of the year. So there was a lot of noise and confusion that occurred last year with INGREZZA and that's all behind us at this point. So if you think about price just running it through 2026, sequentially, very consistent with how we exited the year. However, when those price impacts occurred throughout last year, you still have the year-over-year headwinds associated with that.
So for the year, I'd expect net price to be down year-over-year close to 4 -- call it, 4% to 5%, more heavily weighted or most heavily weighted in Q1 and then a little bit of price compression in Q2 and then more flattish year-over-year in price in the second half of the year. Our $2.7 billion and $2.8 billion implies about at the midpoint, almost 10% growth. And so if you remove the 4%, you're talking about a 14% to 15% growth year volume-wise for the company. So this blockbuster all comes down to volume, it all comes down to developing the tardive dyskinesia market. Even 9 years into launch between ourselves and our competitor you have only 10% of the 800,000 patients actually taking a VMAT2 inhibitor today.
So call frequency matters in a significant way to put tardive dyskinesia on the radar of these mental health clinics and facilities. And so we recently expanded our sales force to continue to ensure that we have the right level of call frequency to be able to drive that volume.
So if you ask within the range, what's going to be the key factor of being at the high end or the low end, it all comes down to new patient generation. And that's going to be on the heels of our sales force expansion as well as some of the direct-to-consumer advertising effort.
It's volume. Pricing is kind of locked in for this year.
Yes.
What about for next year pricing? How do you think about?
We'll figure out pricing throughout this year. We're going through the negotiations with the plans right now. But for those who aren't as close to the story or maybe understand the background of your question. This time last year, I remember a lot of conversation was Teva was selected for negotiation for their medicine, which was going to have an MFP in 2027. And there was fear that if that price was going to be so low that there is going to be price compression on INGREZZA or we'd be kicked out of formulary in a way that would allow patients not to get access to INGREZZA.
So I think 2 things have happened over the past year that have been encouraging that make us feel like it's going to be a manageable window of time for us. One, their negotiated price ended up becoming public and the discount was not as bad as what people had feared. The second piece is it's also become clear in terms of their XR and their milligram pricing strategy that the price is actually going up on a net basis. And so where we sit as a position product in a payer's mind, were in our mind or perspective, a better product at a very affordable price. We don't see a major reason why we won't continue to have strong access through '27 and '28.
So we'll get through the negotiations. We'll find out if we're on or off formulary at the end of this year. But ultimately, we do expect that we'll have strong access in '27 and '28.
Yes. And both companies obviously are trying to grow the market. Where is share of those new patients today roughly?
So new patient share, at least our internal information would put us at about 55% new patients, and they're at about 45% new patients.
And that's data as of like last quarter or last month?
We track it every week. But that's probably on average the last...
Last couple of weeks...
Second half of last year. That's a pretty good proxy.
So it's pretty much the whole second half, you were running more share than they were.
Yes. And that's different than what we had exiting 2024. We had been at a spot between the XR launch and then also their expanded sales force that we were actually at a place where we were not gaining as much and they were at a higher share. And so we've seen that reverse throughout 2025, and that led to record numbers in new patients in Q2 and Q3 and about the same in Q4 as what we saw in Q3. So a significant progress being made on the new patient side of the equation last year.
Switching gears. One investor comment that I hear quite often, and you hear this, I'm sure, too, is wow, at Neurocrine. Great company, great products, but boy they sure do spend a lot of money. So I guess maybe you can address that as a general question. But I think interesting -- a second part of the question is, wow they're moving into obesity? I mean, like how much are they going to spend on obesity. It's a huge crazy space to get into like I think it's important to help people understand like how you're thinking about obesity? Well kind of 2 questions, but it's a...
Yes, that's a buzzword. Anytime you say obesity, I think why are you running into such a competitive space. And I think we're fortunate, honestly, we have an endocrine division that's been in place for quite some time. We have experts that we've hired from all the major companies. And Jude Onyia, our Chief Scientific Officer, actually was the originator of all the large molecules at Lilly.
So I think we know what we're getting ourselves into. And I think we know how we might be able to differentiate. I think it's clear there's not going to be just one winner in this space. There's going to be a lot of different forms in terms of book mechanism as well as ultimately the ease of administration or the frequency of administration. So I think there's a lot for us to continue to pursue in obesity.
And from an investment perspective, it's pretty modest to get to patient level data or at least a healthy obese patient level data. We'll start a trial this year. We'll get some data next year, and we'll let data do the talking in terms of where we go from there. The magnitude of investment goes up significantly when you get -- especially in the Phase IIb or a Phase III setting. But in terms of our capital allocation strategy, we want to invest around 35% of revenue back into R&D. And if you have the quality assets to be able to invest behind that and reach a threshold decision that's data-driven, that's the approach that we're taking right now.
Every analysis that we do, Marc, on shareholder value, what drives shareholder value. The #1 factor is correlation to medium-term revenue growth. And so you can see our #1 capital allocation priority is to invest behind continuing to drive revenue growth. So we'll get critiques around sales force investments, direct-to-consumer investments. We, of course, could find a way to be more profitable in the short term, but we're looking at trying to create long-term shareholder returns here on the SG&A front. And like I said, on R&D, you have to be able to show a sustainable pipeline, and that's something that we're doing within R&D at the 35% investment clip.
And lastly, just to be clear, we're very profitable. I mean 30% non-GAAP operating income. We are committed to staying profitable. It's just we're not focused on maximizing short-term profitability. We do feel like the investments we're making will set us up for long-term success.
And where does business development kind of fit in? Give us a sense of BD last year and how you're thinking about it now?
We did a lot of smaller deals to really enable Jude Onyia's group. I think Samir Siddhanti and team did close to 10 business development transactions.
Many we didn't hear about.
Many of you didn't hear about. They're just smaller in nature and things that you could throw into your development candidate pool. And and go through and see what you have. So we've been focused on the early stage and we're also very focused last year on getting the Phase III trials up and running. So if you think about the capacity of the company, we had CRENESSITY launching, you had the pipeline expanding.
Our focus last year from a BD perspective is more small internal tuck-ins. But we, of course, have the financial flexibility if the right asset came across our plate at the right time, we would, of course, be in a position to act. But right now, feel good with what we have.
Good. Good. Thank you. Thanks for joining us. Appreciate it.
Thanks. Always fun.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Leerink Global Healthcare Conference 2026
🎯 Key Message
- Platform shift Neurocrine relies on two marketed medicines (INGREZZA and CRENESSITY) to drive growth while building a strong internal R&D engine for a multi-product future.
- Financial position ~$2.5B cash, no debt, ~30% non-GAAP operating margin, and ~35% of revenue reinvested into R&D to sustain pipeline growth.
- Long-term aim target a $30–$50B market cap with Phase III readouts in schizophrenia and major depressive disorder planned for 2027–2028, complemented by obesity exploration.
🔑 Strategic Highlights
- CAH launch momentum CRENESSITY is gaining traction with open-label data supporting safety and efficacy; early access and reimbursement processes are favorable, aided by a dedicated sales force expansion.
- INGREZZA growth & access pricing headwinds expected to ease; volume growth driven by expanded field force and efforts to boost new-patient generation in tardive dyskinesia.
- R&D engine & pipeline two late-stage Phase III programs in schizophrenia and depression; continued emphasis on Jude Onyia’s team; selective business development to support early-stage work and internal BD activity.
🆕 New Information
- CRENESSITY traction first-year sales exceed $300M with ~2,000 patients treated; IQVIA cites the launch as in the top 10% of all rare-disease launches.
- Reimbursement strength >80% of CRENESSITY prescriptions are reimbursed; ongoing payer engagement aimed at maintaining strong access through 2027–28.
- Market dynamics CAH patient base estimated at 20,000 classic and 60,000–80,000 nonclassic; ~1,000+ doctors have written CRENESSITY among ~8,000 clinicians in the call universe.
❓ Analyst Q&A
- COEs vs community COEs account for only a minority of CAH patients; expansion to non-COEs remains a priority, with ENDO-pediatric data anticipated to address safety and growth concerns.
- Reimbursement & pricing focus on maintaining strong payer access; discussions with plans ongoing for 2027–28 formulary status and price trajectory in a competitive environment.
- Obesity program & BD obesity initiatives viewed as data-driven, with modest initial investment and a broader pipeline strategy; past BD activity favored tuck-ins to accelerate Jude Onyia’s group, with capital flexibility for selective acquisitions.
⚡ Bottom Line
Neurocrine is transitioning from a pure-launch story to a durable growth company powered by two marketed therapies, a robust cash position, and a commitment to reinvestment in R&D. CRENESSITY shows meaningful early momentum in CAH, INGREZZA remains a cash generator, and two Phase III readouts loom in 2027–2028. The company stresses disciplined capital allocation and a data-driven push to expand both patient access and the future pipeline, signaling a multi-year growth trajectory for shareholders.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — TD Cowen 46th Annual Health Care Conference
1. Question Answer
Good morning and welcome once again to TD Cowen's 46th Annual Healthcare Conference. I'm Phil Nadeau, one of the biotech analysts here at Cowen. And it's my pleasure to moderate a fireside chat with Neurocrine Biosciences. Those of you who follow our research know that Neurocrine is one of our top picks for this year based on its growth prospects. So we're happy to push the team on that today. We have with us Kyle Gano, CEO; Jude Onyia, the CSO; and Todd Tushla, Vice President of IR. Guys, I'll kick it to you to start.
Can you give us a brief state of the company overview, biggest strengths, biggest challenges? And what does Neurocrine need to achieve to drive outperformance over the next year or 2?
Well, thanks, Phil. Thanks to Cowen for having us out here and be able to share our story on Neurocrine. There's a lot of things in that first question there. So I'll do my best. Maybe I'll start with the bookends there and the state of the company and thoughts on drivers of overperformance. I think you capture, in doing so, some of those things in between. When it comes to the state of the company, I think it's important to recognize where we are at present. And in my view, I think we'd all agree here on the stage, Jude and Todd, that the company is operating in a position of strength. I think that's an important place to start.
And it really does begin with appreciation that we have 2 commercial value drivers now with INGREZZA and CRENESSITY. Both of these medicines have a long runway in terms of intellectual property. Both of them are indicated for disease states of significant high unmet medical need, and that gives a lot of opportunity in terms of future growth. When we think about INGREZZA after 8 years of commercialization, we saw double-digit volume growth in 2025, and we're expecting that again this year. We also see a medicine that has the best clinical performance of VMAT2 inhibitors in the commercial setting. It's also the lowest-priced medicine as well. Having those 2 features differentiates us in the minds of the health care providers and the payers.
This is exactly the types of things you want to see in your best-in-class medicine. CRENESSITY is our medicine approved for a rare endocrine disease called congenital adrenal hyperplasia. It was approved in December of 2024. So '25 was the first full year of commercialization, and it's in a really good trajectory right now with over $300 million in sales after a first year with great underlying demand. With this early-stage -- early profile that we have, we believe we're well on our way for a blockbuster, which I think is a very important point to make and pause on as well because a reminder that with that blockbuster status comes increased confidence in double-digit revenue growth year after year as well as revenue diversification on top of INGREZZA. And those are the hallmarks of what I've been trying to achieve since I stepped into the CEO role.
Behind these 2 medicines, then we've got our industry-leading neuropsychiatry portfolio with data that will begin in 2027. And I say begin because this portfolio consists of multiple mid- and late-stage assets that is not only going to share or provide data in 2027, but for multiple years beyond this. I think that's important. When you can give confidence around the time lines, I think that differentiates us over companies in our space. The other item that I'd point out is that -- and one that I think is underappreciated is our R&D engine. I don't think we're giving any credit on that today. It's a fully operational, sustainable R&D engine that is going to allow us to not be dependent upon one program or one data set in the future. It's going to be able to produce reliably multiple high-quality programs.
And initially, you'll see that leading into areas of our expertise in neurology and psychiatry and CRF biology. And hopefully, we'll be able to talk about some of those programs as we move through the Q&A here. And then the last piece I'd call out is we're also sitting in a position of financial strength. I would characterize our business as being high margin and cash generative, and that gives us resiliency and optionality. Those are both, I would say, strengths and add to our competitive advantage versus other companies in our space and something that we'll be able to lean on as well as our financial discipline when we think about capital allocation, being able to take advantage either of our internal pipeline or things externally from an opportunistic standpoint is something that we view as very valuable.
Another strength just to round out the discussion here is our team. We have a proven ability to launch medicines, scale our commercial infrastructure, execute clinical studies and get medicines over the finish line in terms of FDA, and that really paints a really good, strong company. Now I do feel you touched on challenges, weaknesses, strengths, weaknesses. I do want to acknowledge that externally, there are questions around certain areas of the business. One of those that comes up most frequently is the IRA. That's a headwind for our industry and a headwind for INGREZZA, and we take the IRA quite seriously. We've been were wargaming. We've been planning over the past couple of years for our moment when INGREZZA receives its MFP and when that's implemented in 2029.
We've also been preparing for our competitor in the space when their medicine has its MFP implemented in 2027. We feel these situations are quite manageable because we plan for it. We don't see any change in our business fundamentally in terms of the trajectory of where the business is going, let alone INGREZZA. On chronicity, we've heard there's a focus around the new patient start optics. I've had the opportunity to review a lot of orphan medicine launches over the years and very rarely have ever seen a launch go perfectly linear. On a quarterly basis, there's always ebbs and flows in new patient starts, and that's what we've seen in our launch thus far with CRENESSITY. But overall, as I mentioned in my opening remarks here, the underlying demand is quite good. We're on a rare blockbuster trajectory here in terms of sales. And we feel that it's better to look long term.
And the goal here is to change the standard of care for patients. And when that's your North Star, you're going to end in a good spot on that regardless of what might happen on a shorter period of time. And the last thing I would say on the challenges side of the business, we know that there's also some questions around our investments on the SG&A and R&D side of the business. We're one of those few businesses that's profitable, but we're not looking to maximize profit on a given quarter. We're really looking at investing in growth now in a fashion that's consistent with what we can do and achieve at Neurocrine, but driving long-term shareholder is our North Star at Neurocrine, which means investing in the pipeline, expanding indications and the programs that we do have. And certainly, the capabilities that allow us to deliver that is something that's very important.
And regardless of our spend, one of the things that we look at the benchmark is our peer group. And we feel that we'll always be within a range of what our peers are spending across both SG&A and R&D. And ultimately, we look to deliver that shareholder value for you all. So to sum all that up, it really does simplify down to just a few key priorities for us for this year. I think these will speak to areas where we can outperform, double-digit volume growth for INGREZZA, outperforming on sales and performance with INGREZZA. It's successfully completing our scaling of the CRENESSITY launch. We have a sales force expansion that's ongoing now.
We want to pull through the momentum from '25 into '26, expand the addressable patient population and continue executing out in the field, and that will ensure continued sales growth throughout the year. Of course, I mentioned the pipeline is executing on our mid- to late-stage pipeline to deliver the data next year as we've described. So the simple story for Neurocrine, 2 commercial drivers. We have a differentiated portfolio that will start delivering data next year and years beyond. We've got a sustainable R&D engine. We are coming at this in a position of financial strength. There's a lot of things to be excited about.
Working hard to keep your top pick rating.
We appreciate that. Maybe to drill down on some of the pillars that you mentioned. First, on INGREZZA, double-digit revenue growth this year. Your guidance calls for year-over-year growth of 8% to 12% versus 26% in 2024 and 9% in 2025. What are the pulls -- pushes and pulls incorporated into the guidance? What could drive revenue growth in excess of guidance? And are there any key risks that could make it fall short?
Yes. I think on the growth numbers you described, those are on net sales. On volume, we've always experienced a pretty steady double-digit volume growth year after year after year. I think that speaks to the robustness of the TD market. And where we've experienced larger growth years in terms of net sales, it's often been in a moment where we've had less coverage in terms of access, and we've seen some improvements there on gross to net. But overall, what's been stable, what's been consistent, what we've leaned on year after year is that consistent double-digit volume growth, and that's what we anticipate this year.
So in terms of pushes, we've got a market that continues to grow as a VMAT2 category. We know that the prevalence of TD is still outpacing the growth rate of the general population. So you've seen us and our competitor over the past couple of years, increase the actual prevalence of TD and that's something that we'll still see as a dynamic moving forward. Related to that, the number of prescribers that are prescribing antipsychotics, which are the underlying cause of TD continue to expand. And we'll also be able to lean into all these different things, good access and a sales force expansion that will be complete in Q2 that we'll see the benefits as the year goes on. So those are all things that will help us this year.
The headwinds that we often talk about for INGREZZA is there's this IRA still overhang. We feel it's manageable, but it's simply a topic that we often face externally when we meet with you all. It's there. I think we'll see the uncertainty around that wane as we move into '27 and we see what the dynamics are of the payers. At that point, we have our own contract negotiations ongoing for '27 now. that we'll be able to share with you all by the end of this year. And then our own IRA moment comes in 2029.
We appreciate that, that's there. And again, we do take that seriously, but we're in a good spot today. The other piece as we enter 2026, there is going to be a small single-digit headwind on the price per script relative to where we were this time last year, and that's something that we'll face in Q1 as we move through reauthorization as well. So those are the kind of the pushes and pulls we have in the marketplace right now. But overall, I think we see a very healthy market out there and the opportunity is there for us to go out and get it.
On IRA, in particular, your competitor, Teva, guides to consistent growth through their IRA negotiated price. Does Neurocrine share that view for INGREZZA?
Yes. I think that the way the market is set up right now, it's very promotionally sensitive. You have us and our competitor in this space doing a lot out in the field in terms of education, either through different types of media like DTC or through our sales force. And that's going to continue driving diagnosis in the patient population. And with diagnosis becomes -- that results ultimately in a treatment. So we see the market being very robust over the next couple of years.
We estimate that there's approximately 40,000 patients on therapy today out of a total addressable market of 250,000. Does that sound consistent with your own internal estimates? And what could peak penetration be?
Well, I think you're probably in the ballpark, maybe a little bit light on that. It's an interesting question in terms of peak market share. There's really no good comps or comparable out there for you all in TD, and we appreciate that's being -- that's always been one challenge of trying to get your hands around what the true market opportunity is. Again, I'll lean in the market continues to grow quite robustly. And that's with the denominator prevalence number that continues to rise. So I think that would be a good question to revisit maybe a year or 2 down the road as we continue to grow the market. But right now, it doesn't seem like it's slowing at all.
Turning to CRENESSITY . Investors are closely tracking that launch. How has the patient awareness, physician awareness and initial utilization compared to Neurocrine's own expectations?
Yes. Certainly, when we started out at the beginning of '25 in the first full year of commercialization, had we known we ended where we were, we would have been doing happy dance much earlier. We exceeded all of our expectations, and that's across any commercial metric you'd want to talk about, whether it's enrollment forms, net sales, reach in terms of physicians, et cetera. We beat that at the end of the year and really any time point in between. So we're really excited about what being able to create in just that first year.
And just a reminder, we exited '25 with about 10% of the total pool -- patient pool under the care of CRENESSITY. And that's just a really nice milestone to think about when we're helping so many patients after a very short period of time, and we're looking to continue building on that momentum for this year with the idea that we can treat many more thousands of patients. So we're in a good spot, good momentum. There's been good receptivity across the key stakeholders. In this case, we're talking about the health care providers, the patients that are using medicines, advocacy and even payers see the value of what we're bringing to the table.
As you referenced before, the biggest debate among investors on CRENESSITY is the trajectory of the launch from here. What is Neurocrine's understanding of whether there's initial patient bolus and how consistent uptake should be from here on out?
Yes. I'll comment because I feel that a lot of those questions after the Q4 earnings call was this hand-wringing about the new patient start form from Q2 to Q3 to Q4. Our feeling is this is common for an orphan disease launch. We expected ebbs and flows. We were beating our own internal expectations with each quarter, but you're going to have ups and downs. What's important here out the gate is we've got 10% of the patient population, which is signaling the unmet need. It's going to continue to grow.
And if you have steady -- what we're calling steady adds. And by that, I mean, looking back, we've never had a week where you had 0 or single digit and then you had a 50. It's in the double-digit range. And as long as you have steady new patient adds, which we fully expect to have and you have a heavily compliant and persistent patient population, which we've seen through year 1, it's consistent with what we see in the open-label extension and you have solid reimbursement, what you're going to see going forward instead of over-indexing on new patient starts, you're going to see an upwards trajectory in net sales, which is what I feel the investment community is going to be paying most attention here coming in Q1 and the rest of the year.
Speaking of that, TD Cowen projects $301 million of revenue this year. How do you feel about a $301 million this year, and $1.4 billion in 2030. Did either of those numbers...
We haven't given forward-looking guidance, but we firmly believe this is going to be Neurocrine's second blockbuster product.
I think we debate internally how big can...
I think that's the more interesting question internally is -- it's similar to INGREZZA, right? How big can it go?
What type of peak penetration would be possible? And how do you look at the competitive environment? There are some other agents that are in late-stage development.
Well, on the market share type of question, I'd start with when you go out and you survey physicians, what you hear from them is that only about 15% to 20% of their patients get reasonable control of their androgens on a physiological dose of their GC. And if you ask them a different question, but related, what percentage of your patients could benefit by using CRENESSITY and you triangulate to this 80% number of the addressable patient population. Now we all know that sometimes you can get increased views of utilization of physicians and market research, but I think it speaks to the unmet need that's out there.
If you look at the orphan drug launches out there, you can see a range of market shares that these medicines have achieved as high as 50%. So certainly, we keep an eye on that 50% to 80% number that we have from our market research, and we think those are achievable. But ultimately, I do think we'll see peak market share or utilization at a time period that's faster than INGREZZA. INGREZZA tends to be a steady product in terms of number of patients each year. It feels like for orphan diseases, you often see kind of a threshold or a tipping point where physicians understand how to use the medicine and it's turned over to patients pretty quickly and rapidly. I don't think we're quite there yet with CRENESSITY . But when that happens, that's when you really adopted your medicine in the standard of care for patients, and that's the goal here.
Great. Jude, thanks for making the trip. Maybe we'll turn to you in R&D. Can you enunciate Neurocrine's R&D strategy? What therapeutic areas are of interest, what modalities and what risk profile?
Yes. Thank you. So to speak about the strategy, let me frame the vision first and foremost. I think we have this vision of a future state where Neurocrine emerges as a top leader in the CNS space. And with that framing, the way we see leadership is really around the ability to advance really good innovative molecules consistently to the clinic -- through the clinic all the way to commercialization. And so we set a goal that at the long term, we will be the company that will advance one new molecule launch every other year, okay? Working backwards, and we built a strategy around what will it take to get there, okay? And we built a strategy to ensure the breadth and the depth and the flow that is needed. And we focus the elements of the strategy on a couple of components.
First and foremost is really around diversifying our therapeutic areas. As you know, historically, we were heavily overweighted in neuropsychiatry while maintaining that footprint, we are growing investments in neurology. We are growing investments in endocrinology as well as building a new franchise in neuroimmunology and immunology applicable to all of the therapeutic areas. We believe that this balance really, really reflects our strength in our core areas, but brings in new growth vectors, okay? And the second piece of that is really going into not just the symptomatic treatments to disease-modifying therapies. So that's the components of the therapeutic areas.
On the modalities, of course, to enable the strategies for the therapeutic areas and the delivery for the therapeutic areas, we modernize that capability to become a multi-modality innovative organization. Specifically, while in the past, we were largely a small molecule company. We've maintained a strong footprint in small molecule, but we've dialed in peptides, proteins, antibodies, antibody conjugates and gene therapy. And what this, of course, allows us to do is to match modality to proven biology, okay? It gives you flexibility, optionality to quickly go into specific targets and build competitive molecules and differentiated molecules of the future.
And the top component of that strategy is then with the therapeutic areas in place, with the modalities in place, where do you point that engine, okay? What is our innovation philosophy and where do you point the engine? Our innovation philosophy is really around pragmatic innovation, pointing that engine on proven biology. So this is that balance of exploration of new places and exploitation of already validated spaces, okay? Novel mechanisms validated with looking with fresh eyes in old areas. And we quickly pragmatically balanced our portfolio, 75% to proven biology. And these are high-value, high confidence genetically and clinically validated targets that we believe we can quickly design molecules.
A key component of that strategy is making molecule design and engineering a key competitive advantage for Neurocrine. And I can tell you unequivocally that today, our molecule design and engineering is probably one of the most sophisticated in our industry today. And this is allowing us to quickly go after the molecules, the targets we like and quickly advance the pipeline -- a competitive pipeline. And the last component of strategy worth noting is the role of external innovation. We have seamlessly integrated internal and external innovation and using external innovation as an accelerant to drive the growth of the strategy and the growth of the pipeline. And today, when you look at our pipeline, one thing that stands out, 50% of our early phase is enabled by external innovation, okay? This is an intentional strategy to punch above our weight.
And going forward, we continue to see this integration of internal and external as a way to quickly get to the future that we see. And when you put all this together, you heard Kyle talk about the pipeline. I joined Neurocrine to be part of this transformation in the making. I love the pipeline. I see incredible pipeline. The engine is built. It's delivering on the pipeline. If you look today, 4 molecules in Phase II or 3 or 4; 8 molecules in Phase I, another 6 shots that have a shot at getting into Phase I this year. And behind that, we have a lot of molecules ready to continue to reload. I can see 2 years, I can see 3 years in the continuity of the pipeline. What impresses me the most is not the number. It's the quality inherent in the pipeline, and also the quality inherent in the people who've built the pipeline, the expertise, the capabilities, which we call the engine that is in place to continue to do this year-over-year.
I would guess that as 2026 moves on, we'll start to get a lot of questions about the Phase III programs. But here today, the #1 question we get on the pipeline, it can be summarized as basically what is Neurocrine doing in obesity. Can you talk about why Neurocrine is moving into obesity and the science behind the candidate?
It's an excellent question. And I tend to say why not obesity. And I think at our last R&D Day in December, and I think also in January at JPMorgan, both Kyle and I reemphasized our emerging obesity strategy, the mechanics of that strategy, our emerging pipeline. We unfolded -- we shared 4 molecules at this point as well as also some of our ambitions in this space. So let me reiterate why we believe this is really, really important and why we believe we're so well positioned in the next phase of the obesity market. And I want to underline the next phase because the current phase is already in play, and we're positioning for the next phase. So let's look at obesity.
The data suggests that this is probably one of the biggest commercial opportunities our industry has ever seen, okay? The second component is that obesity is a CNS disease. And for a CNS company, okay, with ambitions to be a leader in the CNS space, it will be a disservice to the investors and the shareholders to not play in this space, especially and especially when you believe and we believe that we have truly differentiated competitive molecules that we can advance in this space. And so let's talk about the next phase of the obesity market, okay? So the epicenter of the current market are the GLP-1s, okay? The GLP-1s have proven beyond reasonable doubt. The significant weight loss is indeed possible, but hasn't cured the disease.
So where does the opportunities lie? The next phase isn't going to be about more incremental weight loss. It's really going to be defined by quality weight loss, okay? And what do I refer to as quality weight loss, multiple components, tolerability, durability, fat-specific weight loss, lean mass preservation of muscle maintenance or again, better delivery or even more efficient delivery options and disease comorbidities. These are where the opportunities. And consistently, I want to clarify, that's where our strategy is focused. That's where we believe we can compete and win. So our strategy focuses deliberately on building that 20, 30s plus obesity pipeline and franchise. First and foremost, anchored around CRF2, okay? As you remember, Neurocrine was founded in part on the science of CRF.
This is a mechanism we know. This is a mechanism we're uniquely positioned and the molecule we have a weekly potent CRF2 agonist covers much of the gaps in this space, okay? Fat selective weight loss with lean mass preservation and frankly, in some lower doses, again, in lean mass, we believe this mechanism is more tolerable. We believe, given the muscle component that this is going to be more durable. And another component is that this mechanism also affects -- has positive effects on cardiovascular, positive effects on kidney, we believe will address some of the disease comorbidities in some disease population. So that's our first entry into the market. And this goes in by the end of the first half of the year, IND -- first demand by the end of the first half of the year.
But we're not making a binary bet. We've built to win in this space, we built a moat around CRF2 with potential combination opportunities. While we are confident you can do a monotherapy, okay? We're preparing for opportunities for potential add-on, follow-on maintenance as the case may be. We have a Q weekly triple agonist that, again, is going to go into demand this year. We have a univalent molecule that combines -- it's one molecule, triple agonist, CRF2 agonist, GLP/GIP agonist, all in one molecule that drive fast specific weight loss and maintenance of muscle with many of the benefits that we've already talked about. And the last molecule we shared is the Q monthly, okay? We believe this is a leading -- industry-leading Q monthly, frankly, probably Q3 monthly based on the half-life of this molecule and how we have tuned this triple G agonist to be industry leader, okay?
The last point I want to make, if we sound so confident, it's really based grounded in the capability and the talent we have in the organization. Some of us participated you may not -- some of us participated in creation of the much celebrated incretins, the likes of Mounjaro, Zepbound, Retatrutide. I used to be -- I led the biologics organization at Lilly for many years prior to joining Neurocrine, ahead of peptide therapeutics led that team when I was at Lilly. We have one of the inventors of Mounjaro and Zepbound, a lead scientist at Lilly. We have many of the expertise we need to really, really build and deliver, which brings me to the second component, how we design molecule, our ability to design and tune molecules.
Again, as a point I made earlier, it's probably one of the most sophisticated in the industry. And the last point I'll make, if as Chief Medical Officer we hear, Sanjay. Sanjay will quickly make the point that with a robust and growing clinical organization, well positioned to execute on the strategy, we believe we can quickly get to proof of concept -- very quickly to the proof of concept and really get to the performance -- through performance of these molecules, cheaply and very fast.
So we're looking forward to having data on our CRF2 program in obesity second half of next year. And to Jude's point, one of the positives of working in this space, obviously, we know a lot about CRF and CRF biology through CRENESSITY and prior programs and my time at Neurocrine. You've got objective endpoints, which compares nicely to the subjective endpoints that we deal with in psychiatry. You get the pick winners in Phase I versus Phase III and you have biomarkers along the way. So these are all things that you can lean into and take advantage of if you're a company like Neurocrine.
Perfect. With that, I think we're out of time. So thank you guys for making the trip out to us.
Thank you. Appreciate it.
Thank you all.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — TD Cowen 46th Annual Health Care Conference
🎯 Key Message
- Positioning Neurocrine is building a durable growth engine anchored by two commercial drivers—INGREZZA and CRENESSITY—plus a multi-modality R&D engine and a strong balance sheet to fund growth and optionality.
- Trajectory Expect sustained INGREZZA volume growth, CRENESSITY expansion, and data-driven catalysts from the neurology/endocrinology pipeline beginning in 2026–27.
- Strategy Focus remains on expanding patient populations, managing payer access amid IRA dynamics, and delivering pipeline milestones via internal execution and selective external partnerships.
💡 Strategic Highlights
- Commercial momentum CRENESSITY posted >$300M in its first year with around 10% of its addressable patient pool under care; field expansion ongoing.
- Pipeline strategy Diversified portfolio across neurology, endocrinology, and immunology with a robust R&D engine; external innovation enables ~50% of early-phase work.
- Obesity focus Expanding into obesity with CRF2 and multi-agonist approaches, aiming to define the next phase beyond GLP-1s.
🆕 New Information
- Obesity program CRF2 obesity IND expected by end of 2026; data for the CRF2 obesity program anticipated in the second half of 2026; multiple molecules in development include weekly CRF2 agonist, weekly triple agonist, univalent and monthly triple G agonist formats.
- program breadth 4 molecules in Phase II/III, 8 in Phase I, plus about 6 additional shots anticipated to enter Phase I this year; external innovation accounts for roughly half of early-stage work.
- Guidance context IRA headwinds acknowledged with ongoing payor negotiations for 2027 and a 2029 MFP horizon; company emphasizes resilience and capital discipline within peer spending ranges.
❓ Analyst Q&A
- CRENESSITY uptake Focused on annual trajectory, with steady new patient adds and no abrupt spikes; discussions touched peak market penetration versus ongoing adoption and market share potential (54–80% comparisons cited in market research).
- IRA & pricing Management stated IRA remains a headwind but manageable, with continued contract negotiations for 2027 and visibility into payer dynamics later in the year.
- Obesity strategy Confirmed emphasis on CRF2 and combination approaches as the next growth frontier, with data readouts and INDs shaping near-term catalysts.
⚡ Bottom Line
Neurocrine reinforces a two-driver growth model plus a broad, high-quality pipeline and a disciplined balance sheet. Key near-term catalysts include CRENESSITY momentum and a forthcoming obesity program (CRF2) with INDs and data in the 2026–27 window. Long-term value hinges on pipeline execution, peak penetration in new launches, and navigating payer dynamics amid IRA-related changes.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Q4 2025 Earnings Call
1. Management Discussion
Hello, and welcome, everyone, joining today's Neurocrine Biosciences Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year 2025 Earnings Call. [Operator Instructions] Please note, this call is being recorded. [Operator Instructions]
And it is now my pleasure to turn the meeting over to Todd Tushla, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.
Happy Wednesday to everyone, and welcome to Neurocrine Biosciences Fourth Quarter and 2025 Year-end Earnings Call. With me today are Kyle Gano, Chief Executive Officer; Matt Abernethy, Chief Financial Officer; Eric Benevich, Chief Commercial Officer; Sanjay Keswani, Chief Medical Officer; and for the first time, we are very pleased to be joined by Samir Sadanti, Vice President of Strategy and Corporate Development.
During today's call, we will be making forward-looking statements. These statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties, and our actual results may differ materially. I encourage you to review the risk factors discussed in our latest SEC filings. After prepared remarks, we'll be happy to address any questions.
With that, Kyle, take it away.
Thanks, Todd. Good afternoon, everyone. A hallmark of a healthy company is the strength of the foundation beneath it. As Neurocrine enters 2026, our foundation is stronger than at any point in our more than 30-year history and it continues to strengthen. With growing enterprise-wide momentum and strategic balance diversification, Neurocrine has entered a new era of meaningful growth led by our first and best-in-class commercial brands.
INGREZZA performance continues to impress. Strategic investments in access and sales force expansion drove a record year for both new and total prescriptions. This momentum carries us into 2026, where despite 9 years post launch, we expect double-digit volume-driven growth supported by continued demand from the roughly 9 out of 10 TD or HD Korea patients not currently taking a VMAT2 inhibitor.
Like INGREZZA, CRENESSITY's launch has also been exceptionally strong. By the end of the fourth quarter, our first full commercial year after its approval in December 2024, prescriptions covered over 10% of the classic and general adrenal hyperplasia patient population, underscoring the tremendous unmet need. What a great start, and I'd like to thank our team for making this all possible. This strong early adoption across patients, caregivers and prescribers reinforces our conviction that CRENESSITY will become Neurocrine's second blockbuster product.
With an FDA-approved label supporting uncompromised efficacy, including an efficacious first dose with no requirement for titration, multiple formulations for pediatric and adult populations and a favorable safety and tolerability profile, CRENESSITY is rapidly becoming the standard of care for patients with classic CH. This profile mirrors the attributes that supported the success of INGREZZA and underscores our confidence in CRENESSITY's impact for patients and Neurocrine moving forward.
Turning to research and development. At our December R&D Day, we outlined 3 strategic pillars. First, we aim to lead the VMAT2 category by leveraging our deep INGREZZA experience and advancing next-generation VMAT2 inhibitors. By way of background, INGREZZA was the first approved treatment for tardive dyskinesia and Neurocrine paid the path for the development of new medicines in this space. Our nearly 20-year history provides a durable foundation for category leadership. This starts with NBI-'890, which recently entered into Phase II in tardive dyskinesia and with MBI-'675, which is falling close behind. Both of these products have the potential for long-acting injectable formulations.
Second, we are delivering on the promise of CRF through a two-pronged approach: advancing next-generation CRF1 antagonist, such as NBIP-'1435 in CH and expanding the platform with CRF2 agonist starting with NBIP-'2118 into adjacent areas, including metabolic diseases such as obesity. For more than 30 years, Neurocrine has been a pioneer in CRF biology, and this experience uniquely positions us to evolve and expand what CRF-based therapies can deliver.
Third, we are maximizing and evolving the pipeline, which is stronger than ever. This is led by our late-stage industry-leading neuropsychiatry portfolio, including two Phase III programs, osiapator major depressive disorder and direct leading in schizophrenia. Like INGREZZA and CRENESSITY before them, both represent potential first and best-in-class medicines. We expect top line data from the osavampator studies in the first of 2 studies in 2027 and which is shaping up to be the most data-rich year in Neurocrine's history.
In 2025, we achieved our Phase I through Phase III objectives for the first time, making it the most productive clinical year in our history. We also have a clear line of sight to repeating this level of performance in 2026, accelerating us towards our goal of delivering one new medicine every 2 years at steady state. As I said from the outset, we entered 2026 with the strongest foundation in Neurocrine's history. It is incumbent upon me, our leadership team and the entire organization to continue executing and delivering for patients and shareholders.
We appreciate your support. And with that, I'll turn the call over to Matt.
Thank you, Kyle, and good afternoon, everyone. 2025 was a noteworthy year for Neurocrine as total product sales grew to more than $2.8 billion, representing 22% year-over-year growth. This performance reflects continued strength and durability from INGREZZA and the successful initial launch of CRENESSITY. Together, these products form the foundation of our growth and generate durable cash flows that support long-term shareholder value creation.
INGREZZA generated just over $2.5 billion in revenue, up 9% year-over-year, driven by double-digit volume growth, partially offset by pricing concessions associated with formulary access investments to support long-term growth. Fourth quarter performance was in line with expectations outlined on our Q3 call. New prescriptions remain near record levels achieved in Q3, a strong result given the ongoing sales force expansion.
Looking ahead, we are guiding to INGREZZA sales in the range of $2.7 billion to $2.8 billion in 2026, representing approximately 10% growth. This outlook reflects continued double-digit volume growth, including contributions from the expanded sales force in the second half of the year partially offset by price declines tied to formulary access improvements implemented in 2025. Overall, we expect net pricing in 2026 to be relatively consistent with levels exiting 2025. INGREZZA enters the year with strong NRx momentum, broad access and an expanded commercial team ready to execute.
For CRENESSITY, we exited 2025 with over $300 million in net product sales and approximately 10% of addressable patients being prescribed CRENESSITY. As a first in disease launch, quarter-to-quarter enrollment form activity can be variable, but what gives us confidence is the number of patients on therapy, refill behavior and the speed of reimbursement. Feedback remains extremely positive and our first year on the market exceeded both internal and external expectations.
Given that CRENESSITY is the first product approved for classic CAH in more than 70 years, with much still to learn around market dynamics, we are not providing specific sales guidance for 2026. Later in the call, Eric will discuss the initiatives underway to continue developing this attractive market.
Turning to the financials. Our cash position increased by approximately $700 million from $1.8 billion at the end of 2024 to $2.5 billion at the end of 2025, reflecting strong operating performance and a healthy balance sheet. While maximizing near-term profitability is not our primary objective, we remain highly profitable, delivering approximately 30% non-GAAP operating margin or roughly $850 million of non-GAAP operating income for 2025, including $83 million of R&D milestones and IP R&D expense.
In 2026, we expect another strong year of non-GAAP operating income, driven by increased product sales partially offset by investments across SG&A and R&D. These investments align with our top capital allocation priorities of driving revenue growth and advancing our pipeline. SG&A growth year-over-year primarily reflects investments related to our 2026 sales force expansion, which we expect to be completed by the end of the first quarter. At the midpoint of our guidance range, GAAP SG&A is expected to be in the low 40% of sales for 2026.
R&D expense growth reflects a full year of investment in our Phase III programs for osavampator and direclidine with data expected in 2027 as well as the initiation of multiple Phase II and Phase I programs, including obesity. Overall, we expect GAAP R&D expense, excluding approximately $25 million in milestones to be in the mid-30% of sales range, consistent with our prior commentary. Overall, 2026 is shaping up to be another important year for Neurocrine as we continue to grow INGREZZA and CRENESSITY while advancing our pipeline. We entered the year with strong momentum and are well positioned for continued growth.
With that, I'll turn the call over to Eric Benevich, our Chief Commercial Officer. Eric?
Thanks, Matt. I'm very proud of our team's performance last year across both CRENESSITY and INGREZZA, and I'm equally enthusiastic about the significant opportunity ahead for both brands. Matt covered the financial highlights, so I'll add additional color and highlight key focus areas to drive continued growth for both brands.
For the CRENESSITY launch, you've heard us say so far so great, and 2025 certainly lived up to that mantra with over $300 million of net sales in the first full year on the market. Throughout 2025, we saw strong demand across pediatric and adult patients and across both genders with prescriptions now trending towards a majority of pediatric patients in female patients on therapy. Importantly, while new patient starts may vary from week-to-week and quarter-to-quarter, once a patient initiates treatment with CRENESSITY, they tend to stay on CRENESSITY. This real-world experience is consistent with our experience in the open-label extension studies.
As we've said from the outset, as a first in disease medicine, CRENESSITY is a learning launch, very much aligned with our experience with INGREZZA in TD. In fact, the parallels between the two launches are remarkably similar. Both INGREZZA and CRENESSITY are first in disease therapies for conditions that previously lacked specifically FDA-approved treatment options and both achieved approximately $300 million in sales in their first 12 months.
Being a first in disease launch, we still have much to learn about the patient population, the prescriber base and potential seasonal dynamics. And similar to INGREZZA, while we're not providing specific annual guidance in year 2, we remain highly confident that CRENESSITY will be Neurocrine's second blockbuster medicine as we establish it together with replacement of glucocorticoids as the standard of care treatment for patients with classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia.
As we enter CRENESSITY's second full year on the market, the natural question is, so what's next? As I noted this time last year, long-term success CRENESSITY will be driven by our ability to reach, educate and activate the CH community on this breakthrough medicine. To date, more than 1,000 prescribers have written a prescription for CRENESSITY, yet roughly 2/3 have treated only one patient so far, underscoring both the progress we've made and the opportunity ahead.
To support continued growth, we're focused on several key priorities in 2026. As previously announced, we're expanding the CRENESSITY sales force with new representatives hitting the field in April. This is a rare disease team so the overall FTE numbers are still small. However, this expansion will allow us to go deeper within the existing endocrinology HCP base and allow us to expand our reach into additional potential prescribers. While endocrinologists remain central, we've learned some classic CAH patients are managed outside of endocrinology by primary care providers or OB-GYNs.
We're excited to leverage AI and other technology tools to help identify and engage providers likely to be caring for classic CAH patients. We're also continuing to invest in medical education to improve the community's understanding of CAH, the limitations of GC monotherapy and reinforce CRENESSITY's compelling product profile. It remains the first and only new CAH specific treatment in 70 years. As a potent and selective CRF1 antagonist, CRENESSITY targets the source of dysregulation in CAH and directly prevents the surge of excess ACTH from the pituitary to restore downstream androgen control and enable physiologic steroid dosing. Furthermore, CRENESSITY has the largest data set in adults and children with classic CAH, which includes greater than 450 patient years of clinical trial exposure and greater than 550 patient years of real-world exposure.
With a favorable long-term safety profile, robust efficacy and broad labeling, it's clear why uptake has been so strong after only 1 year on the market. In fact, we estimate that we've gotten approximately 10% of the classic CAH population on therapy in the first year of availability. This is an important milestone for us. We believe as the word continues to spread in the CAH community, as the endocrinology prescriber base expands and as they share their real-world clinical experiences, we'll see a continued peer-to-peer effect that will deepen disease understanding and drive broader adoption.
Now turning to INGREZZA. We had a record number of new patient starts and a record number of total patients on therapy in 2025. Today, we estimate only about 10% of the prevalent TD population is currently taking a VMAT2 inhibitor. Even 9 years since our launch, there remains a substantial opportunity to grow the class, grow our market share and help more patients start and stay on therapy. With double-digit growth momentum, strong formulary access and an expanded and reorganized sales force set to hit the field in Q2, a class-leading and differentiated product profile and 12 more years of remaining exclusivity, INGREZZA is well poised to help many, many more TD and HD patients.
So with that, I'll turn the call over to my colleague, Dr. Sanjay Keswani, to share our pipeline progress.
Thanks, Eric, and good afternoon, everyone. In keeping with this year's focus on momentum and strategic diversification, our clinical organization will enroll in advance more studies than at any point in Neurocrine's history. While most of my future earnings remarks will center on enrollment progress and study initiations, today, I'll highlight recently disclosed data for our 2 commercial assets, INGREZZA and CRENESSITY. An optimal way to compare therapies is through head-to-head studies. With that in mind, we recently published first of its kind head-to-head data comparing INGREZZA and AUSTEDO XR at the 64th Annual Meeting of the American College of neuropharmacology. PET imaging results confirmed what we've long believed not all VMAT2 inhibitors are equal.
In this study, INGREZZA demonstrated a nearly twofold higher VMAT2 target occupancy compared with therapeutic doses of AUSTEDO XR, an important finding that indicates INGREZZA's superior efficacy in treating tardive dyskinesia.
Turning to CRENESSITY, we recently shared data from our open-label extension study. While multiple analyses are still underway and will be presented at upcoming endocrinology meetings, including Endo2026, the main takeaway is clear. Across both adult and pediatric CAH patients, CRENESSITY continues to show robust sustained clinically meaningful benefits through 2 years of treatment. We see durable reductions in excess ACTH and androgens directly addressing the underlying pathophysiology of CAH and maintaining control over time.
In pediatrics, CRENESSITY delivered sustained ACTH suppression while preserving normal physiological signaling, including the immune stress response. Hence, rates of adrenal insufficiency remained very low, 0 in the pediatric double-blind study and 1.6% in adults, identical between active and placebo patients.
In a prepubertal subset, we also observed slowing of bone age advancement, translating to a predicted adult height increase of over 2 inches. In adults, approximately 70% of patients were brought into the physiological steroid range while maintaining androgen control and about 40% of overweight or obese patients achieved at least 5% weight loss over 2 years, reflecting CRENESSITY's beneficial cardio metabolic effects. Safe and tolerability remained excellent with approximately 80% retention at 2 years, no new safety signals and over 35,000 patient weeks of exposure. Overall, these data reinforce CRENESSITY's strong differentiation across efficacy, safety and tolerability, and support our conviction that will continue to be the standard of care treatment for patients with classical congenital adrenal lipoplasia.
Regarding our industry-leading neuropsychiatry programs, the late-stage Phase III studies for osofapator in major depressive disorder and direct laden in schizophrenia are enrolling well. And just last month, we initiated a Phase II study of NBI-'890, our next-generation VMAT2 inhibitor for the treatment of tardive dyskinesia. All other studies in our portfolio are advancing as expected, and we look forward to keeping you apprised of our progress.
With that, I'll hand the call back to Kyle.
Thanks, I think we can go ahead and take questions now.
[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Paul Matteis with Stifel.
2. Question Answer
I appreciate that you're not guiding on CRENESSITY, but I was wondering if you could maybe give us either a window into the first 6 weeks of 2026. Or just more broadly, the number on the revenue side, obviously way above consensus in 4Q. But as we look at start forms, there is a slight decline from 2Q to 3Q and 3Q to 4Q. Curious in your perspective on what you're seeing now and where you think this kind of patient add rate might plateau in say, the near to midterm?
Paul, so we're going to start giving weekly sales information out on the web. Just kidding. I mean it's been a tremendous year for -- it's been a tremendous year for CRENESSITY, over $300 million in the first year. Congratulations to the team. And we really look forward to year 2 being another strong, exciting year. We do anticipate meaningful steady new patient additions every single quarter. That's going to lead to a very nice growth year. We still, of course, have a whole lot to learn associated with this launch. As you remember, with INGREZZA -- it took us about 4 years to get to a guide, but we will be providing insight every quarter as it relates to net sales demand and overall reimbursement dynamics. I'd say looking around the table, we couldn't be more proud of the team in what's been accomplished this year and really feel good with how we're positioned for the years ahead.
We'll take our next question from Cory Kasimov with Evercore ISI.
Wanted to ask about that receptor occupancy poster from late January regarding INGREZZA versus AUSTEDO. Curious how you might use this information? And what are the potential implications here with regard to your next-gen VMAT2 inhibitors?
Yes. So we're quite excited by the data we showed, which is actually a head-to-head PET study between AUSTEDO XR and INGREZZA. And as we articulated in our recent press release, we saw nearly double the target occupancy for INGREZZA after 1 dose versus ASTEDA-XR. And even when we measured at steady-state concentrations, we still had a markedly superior advantage in terms of VMAT2 target engagement. We think this underlines the efficacy that we see in INGREZZA in the community of patients with tardive dyskinesia as our belief is that the higher the rate of VMAT2 target occupancy, the greater the efficacy in terms of control of tardive dyskinesia.
In terms of the second part of your question, we clearly have a lot of experience in terms of matching receptor occupancy with clinically efficacious doses. And we're utilizing that relationship with our 2 VMAT2 follow-ons. Indeed, we started a Phase II study of our first follow-on in tardive dyskinesia quite recently.
We'll take our next question from Phil Nadeau with TD Cowen.
Congratulations on a productive year. I just wanted to follow up on Paul's question on patient dynamics with Predict. I think in your prepared remarks, you mentioned the possibility of seasonality in patient demand. And I think investors are all debating whether there could have been an early launch bolus to patient initiations. Appreciating that you still have a lot to learn. What have you learned about those two factors in patient dynamics, 1 in early launch bolus and two, whether there's any seasonality as you go through the year?
Yes. Thanks, Phil. This is Kyle. Good question here on that. I think it's important to keep in mind that the similarities that Eric called out of his opening remarks here are quite true and accurate across the board. In terms of the first year of launch, we've gone through our first Q1 through Q4. As we've learned in most orphan diseases and launches, whether it was INGREZZA or looking at others, there's always ebbs and flows in enrollment forms, and in particular, early in launch, it's typically a function of frequency of office visits when patients initially hear about the opportunity for a new medicine and physicians getting the bird out. So I think it's too early to call whether or not there's any seasonality component. It takes a couple of quarters to draw those conclusions across multiple years. And it took us a while to get to that level of confidence with INGREZZA. So I think it's prudent right now to collect that information and make a more sound decision about guidance enrollment forms, things of that sort as we get a little bit further in the launch. But rest assured, great feedback out there across all the stakeholders, prescribers, physicians and even payers out there. So nothing out there is saying that we're anywhere but moving towards changing the standard of care and achieving blockbuster status like we've done with INGREZZA.
We'll take our next question from Brian Abrahams with RBC Capital Markets.
And my congrats as well on a very productive year. Question on the expense side. It seems like you're expecting a little bit of an uptick in R&D expenses for this year relative to 2025. Can you talk a little bit more about the components of that? How much of that is some of the earlier-stage programs like obesity? And how quickly could some of those costs potentially roll off in 2027 once the Phase III's readout?
Yes. Thank you for the question. The cost increase is really on the heels of the Phase III trials and pushing those forward for a full year this year in 2026. The obesity investment is actually quite minimal for 2026, but of course, is a really important program for us to be able to drive shareholder value creation, which we would expect some level of data in '27. But from an expense, when do expenses roll off, we would anticipate for the major Phase III programs. Those will carry on through 2027 with a big chunk falling off in 2028.
We'll move next to Tazeen Ahmad with Bank of America.
I wanted to go back to CRENESSITY for a second. So I know it took what is it, 3 or 4 years before you guys started giving guidance on INGREZZA. What kind of metrics did you need to collect in order to get confident in providing guidance? And do you have a sense of whether or not it would take that length of time before you get confident with CRENESSITY and providing sales guidance for that as well.
Yes. Tazeen, maybe I'll tackle the second question first. It may not take as long to get to a point where we feel comfortable giving guidance with CRENESSITY as it did with INGREZZA. This is a rare disease, INGREZZA's not a rare disease, but it was at the time a rarely diagnosed disease. We have a single essentially a single prescriber base in endocrinology versus multiple different specialties and different sites of care and so on, which made getting a handle on INGREZZA a little bit more challenging early on.
As I mentioned in my prepared remarks, both our first in disease therapies, both are breakthrough medicines. But as Kyle stated, we've gone through one cycle so far with Cronecity and Classic CAH and has been a learning launch for us. There's a few factors that have been a little bit different than what we expected, but different in the positive the adoption rate was greater than what we had expected coming into this launch, which is awesome. Certainly, the reimbursement has been favorable. And we've been very pleased with the persistency that we've seen when patients start treatment, they tend to stay on it.
So as we get more experience in this community, in this CH community and as we learn more about how we're able to reach sort of beyond that first 10% of the population that I talked about, then I think we'll get to a point down the road where we feel more comfortable providing specific guidance.
Let's not confuse not providing guidance with not expecting significant growth this year. Everything that we see from steady enrollments of new patients along with patients staying on therapy -- everything points to their continuing to be strong growth. It's just a company decision that we made to not provide a guide here.
We'll move next to Corinne Johnson with Goldman Sachs.
I guess beyond the pricing discussion with respect to INGREZZA and AUSTEDO, which I guess is now better understood. How are you thinking about volume impact to INGREZZA next year with asset becoming a negotiated product? And how do you think formularies are going to handle here products in the context of maybe more like relatively competitive pricing than we could have expected.
Yes. I mean, obviously, we've been thinking and preparing for the formulary year and the impact of duterated tetrabenazine having an MFP negotiated price. But certainly, we're very focused on 2026 as we kind of prepare to go into that next phase. We're in a position now and Kyle talked about it with his prepared remarks of carrying a lot of momentum into 2026 in terms of our volume growth and new patient starts having favorable coverage, especially in the Medicare formularies and being able to leverage all of that as we enter into the formulary negotiations for 2027. So we feel good about our strategy for 2027. We believe we'll be able to maintain formulary coverage to enable continued growth. And this is a market that has been growing at a double-digit clip for the last several years, which is pretty amazing, especially for a category that's coming into year 9, year 10. So we feel good about 2026, expect to have another really strong year for INGREZZA. And we feel good about our strategy for maintaining that growth in 2027 and beyond.
The only thing I would add to that, this is Kyle, by the way, is that on the 2026, we have our contracting done that we pulled through in 2025. So we expect that to be stable this year. no midyear adds like we saw in 2025. So entering 26, we expect the net revenue per prescription to be roughly similar throughout the course of the year. So revenue growth should also track nicely volume growth this year. That's our expectation. So a strong year here, like in 2025, we expect good double-digit volume growth and to increase our market share throughout the course of the year.
We'll take our next question from Jay Olson with Oppenheimer.
Congrats on all the progress. We're curious about the 569 study in Alzheimer's psychosis and any potential lessons learned from the ADEPT II study of Cobenfy, especially in terms of managing trial conduct across the study sites and any strategies you can use to mitigate operational risk for that study?
Watching the progress of Cement and AD psychosis quite carefully. But just as an aside, psychiatry studies deserve specific attention. And we are fortunate to have a very experienced team who successfully executed psychiatry studies. So for both our Phase III studies, we spent a lot of time carefully selecting sites and ensuring that the patients enrolled in our studies are real patients rather than professional patients who may inflate a placebo response. And indeed, with respect to placebo mitigation, we have a multifold strategy with respect to design of the study, 1:1 randomization, keeping the study sites relatively small. So for example, we only have 20 sites per Phase III study for directed in our schizophrenia studies. .
And also a great deal of hands-on monitoring of sites and site investigators by our internal team. So I think the BMS data were invited some caution with respect to ensuring that we adequately monitor these sites. But we feel in a pretty good position in terms of doing that already.
We'll take our next question from Anupam Rama with JPMorgan.
This is Joyce on for Anupam. Could you discuss the feedback you've been getting from KOLs about your 2-year conicity data specifically as it relates to durability of benefit and just how you see this data as continuing to support and drive strong persistence of patients on drug.
Yes. So we've been getting a lot of positive support from clinicians who have been prescribing CRENESSITY, as you say, for some time now. And we recently showed that 2-year data and again, elicited a lot of positive feedback. I think what's important for these patients and often their parents is showing that androgens are reduced in a chronic fashion. And by doing so, reducing doses of glucocorticoids to -- in quite physiological levels, and that's a huge deal for this patient population who are essentially plagued by the side effects of chronic glucocorticoid use. So in our 2-year data set, we saw reductions in weight for those individuals who are obese, improved insulin tolerance. And with respect to antigen suppression, we also saw attenuation of bone age advancement, and that's a big deal for these patients and again, their parents because often, these individuals have precocious purity and don't attain the potential with respect to adult height. So really pleased to see that data and also the positive impact on the community. Lastly, I'll say that the drug is actually really well tolerated, very important, particularly in a pediatric population. So no surprises at all despite collecting over 35,000 patient weeks of exposure. Of note, we do preserve the vasopressin-induced ACTH stimulus. I mentioned that because agreement insufficiency is always a worry, particularly as you reduce glucocorticoids. And we're very happy with that agreement in efficiency data, indeed, no cases in the pediatric population and an active versus placebo rate that was equivalent in the adult population. So hopefully, that addressed your question.
This is Kyle. Maybe just to add two quick comments on there. I think the -- the pieces that are really important is if you think about safety and tolerability, the open-label extension, 90% of subjects rolled over and then 80% out to 2 years. Just an amazing safety and tolerability profile and CH, although you could say this is about many disease states more so than ever for CH, efficacy gets your foot in the door, but safety and tolerability ones the day. I think the other piece is on the efficacy that we see at 2 years, it really describes the benefits of long-term treatment. You can really bend the course of the disease in terms of progression the earlier you treat, the younger you are and the longer you stay on treatment. So all good things to think about when we continue to accumulate this longer-term data.
We'll move next to Mohit Bansal with Wells Fargo.
So one is regarding the expenses on the SG&A side. It seems like the sales and marketing increase is more than what we have seen last year. Can you just help us understand, is it more towards CRENESSITY or INGREZZA? And then I would also love to understand how you're thinking about NUGREZZA, given that you are guiding for the 10% growth which is higher than last year. So do you expect volumes to continue to grow at the rate of last year? Or just like you're not doing a price decline this year. So that's probably what is driving it? .
So SG&A expense is really the sales force expansion that we mentioned on the last call is a significant part of that. And we also have other ancillary initiatives surrounding cronecity as well as INGREZZA to ultimately drive sales. But this coming year, we do expect double -- or this year, we expect double-digit growth, as we've said. That's partially offset by price, call it, negative 4% based upon the pricing that we -- the contracting that we had entered into in the first half of last year. So you're talking about volume growth at the midpoint of our guidance range for INGREZZA to be in the mid-teens. So we feel really good with where the team is positioned. And of course, with the sales force expansion, going to be in place at the end of Q1, we'd expect to see more benefit in the second half of the year.
We'll take our next question from Myles Minter with William Blair.
I just had a question on the number of Tuesdays in each quarter. I'm actually going to ask about the sales force expansion with CRENESSITY onboard in April. Is that required to keep this steady new patient flow in for the product? Or would you expect sometime in the second half of the year maybe that, that sales force expansion helps inflect the products?
Yes. The way I would characterize it is that we're investing in growth. We're very optimistic about the opportunity with CRENESSITY and classic CAH. And we made our sales force size and structure decisions prior to the launch without the sort of, I'll call it, the Monday morning quarterback opportunity, having more data to work with. So Obviously, we have been executing this expansion on a relative basis. It's not a large number of FTEs that we're adding into the CRENESSITY team. But we do think it will allow us to do a couple of things. One is to go deeper within the existing prescriber base. And in my prepared remarks, I talked about how we now have over 1,000 doctors that have prescribed CRENESSITY and yet 2/3 of them have only treated 1 patient thus far. So we know that there's more patients in those practices. And given the very large territory sizes. This will allow us to get in and follow up with the existing prescribers a little bit more frequently. Secondly, we also recognize that there are some patients out there that we haven't been able to reach through the existing sales team so we can go deeper into endocrinology, and we recognize that some patients are not cared for buying endocrinologists. They might be seeing internal medicine or a family medicine physician or even an OB/GYN -- so we have the opportunity now to explore that a little bit with the expanded sales team. Last thing I'll say is that we're excited about the reputation that we've created within the endocrinology community. -- we're able to attract some really high potential and I think people with great track records on to the team. We've actually completed the expansion of that group. They're going through training now. and we'll be ready to deploy into the new organizational structure at the beginning of Q2. So full steam ahead with the expansion and certainly very excited about the additional bandwidth that we'll have created as we execute against it.
So --, I'll be holding a webinar about the calendar and how it lays out the rest of the year. Just kidding. But I did want to go back to a question that Phil had regarding FSD seasonality, and I think Kyle and Eric address it nicely in terms of not having enough experience with CRENESSITY demand side. I meant to mention there is a gross to net impact in the first quarter. It's about 5%, and it's associated with the commercial co-pay reset. So that's one thing I wanted to make sure as you're developing your models and expectations for Q1 for CRENESSITY, that would be something that you take into consideration.
We'll move next to Yigal Nochomovitz with Citigroup.
Congrats on the progress. I just wanted to probe a little further on the 10% share in CAH. Is it correct that that's all endos? Are you seeing any early share from some of the other categories you mentioned like PCPs and OB/GYN. And I'm wondering to what extent at this point you can use some of the AI database inferencing to sort of tease out which PCPs and OBG WANs may be the best candidates for chronicity.
Yes. So -- yes. I just want to clarify, when -- in my prepared remarks, I talked about the fact that we estimate that we've reached and gotten onboard treatment of approximately 10% of the prevalent CAH population. So taking a step back, in the U.S., we estimate it's around 20,000 people with classic CAH. And obviously, in year 1 to get to about 10% of them and get them on treatment is a really important milestone for us. Virtually all of those new patient starts have been originated within endocrinology. And we recognize that for us to be able to continue to expand the use of CRENESSITY and get broader within that patient population, we're going to have to be able to reach patients beyond the prescriber base that we've reached thus far. And you mentioned patient finding. I talked about that a little bit in my prepared remarks. So we are leveraging different technology platforms and different data sets that will allow us to identify where are patients that look similar, at least in the data to the patients that we've already gotten on treatment and then allow our field sales organization to follow up and to confirm whether those patients exist at this or that practice.
Using that information and feeding it back makes the system smarter and allows us to improve our targeting. So this is a rare disease and there isn't a specific diagnosis code for classic CAH. And so for us to continue to grow and to have that steady growth that we expect, we have to leverage technology, and we also have to leverage the team.
We'll move next to David Amsellem with Piper Sandler.
Maybe I'll ask another CRENESSITY question but a different way. As you think about furthering penetration, are you getting any kind of pushback from endocrinologists? Or maybe I'll ask differently, what -- are there any barriers to further adoption that you're seeing? And also, as you think about the competitor that's in development, the ACTH antagonist, do you have a sense that doctors are waiting out the availability of that drug to put patients on that modality as opposed to CRENESSITY. Maybe you can talk about that dynamic as well.
Yes. Maybe I'll tackle the second question first. The answer is no. I don't think that community endocrinologists are, for the most part aware of an investigational drug or our warehousing are holding back treatment of patients for a drug that may or may not be available several years down the road. In terms of what's the biggest barrier, I would say it's a lack of knowledge. And the reason I say that is that, yes, there are some endocrinologists that are quite familiar with and skilled in managing these patients. But the vast majority of community endocrinologists have little experience with classic CAH. And if they have CAH patients in their practice, they might have a couple of them. And so a big part of our educational effort, and I mentioned this in my prepared remarks, is really continuing to educate around classic CAH, the inadequacies of high-dose glucocorticoid treatments, the consequences of patients being either over or undertreated. And then tying that back to the clinical profile that's emerged for CRENESSITY, especially the very strong safety and tolerability that we've seen both in the trials and in the real-world experience.
So it's really getting physicians past this sort of, I'll call it, free CRENESSITY belief that they're treating their patients with the steroids. They think they're doing fine, but when they look closer, they realize that they're having a lot of comorbidities and a lot of complications from either their disease or from their -- and as we continue to make that education more broad, certainly, we're seeing the doctors are realizing that, hey, CRENESSITY is a whole new way of treating CAH. It's a paradigm shift. And I think that's been borne out in the adoption.
The other thing that I'll say is that we've been working really closely with the patient advocacy group, the Care Foundation. They've been a wonderful partner in terms of educating their membership. And certainly coming into this launch, we recognize that a lot of patients with CAH or families with CH didn't fully understand the consequences of either uncontrolled androgens and/or excess glucocorticoid exposure. And so we continue to direct our educational efforts, not just towards HCPs, but also towards the patient community, and I think it's really a benefit to both groups.
We'll move next to Brian Skorney with Baird.
This is Luke on for Brian. So on CRENESSITY, with regard to the remaining estimated 90% untreated prevalent market, can you remind us what proportion is managed at an endocrinologist compared to primary care or other settings?
Yes. I think we're learning that, and so it's difficult to give you an exact proportion of what proportion are under the care of Endo versus a PCP. And one of the things that we've seen, at least in the cohort of patients that have been started already on chronicity is that some of them are -- appear to be co-managed by endocrinologists and primary care. And it may be that they see their endocrinologists once a year but they may be seeing their primary care physician more frequently. And the question is who's managing their CEH and refilling their prescriptions and so on. So as we go forward, teasing that out of the data, I think, is really important. And I think that as I mentioned earlier, being able to identify those primary care or OB practices that appear to have multiple CAH patients and having our sales team go in there and follow up, that creates the mechanism or the feedback loop that allows us to understand where these patients are in the best way to educate, motivate and activate these patients.
We'll take our next question from Marc Goodman with Leerink Partners.
Matt, just a clarification. You mentioned negative 4% price bots for 2026. Is that off the 5,500 that was, I think, previously guided for the full year of '25? And then I just actually have another follow- on the conversation about ACTH antagonist and just how you guys view that drug to be used eventually if it ever comes out with everyone hopefully on CRENESSITY by then? Like is it an add-on? Do you think it would be a competitive product? Or how do you even view it at that point?
We haven't disclosed what the net price was for 2025, but you can think about the 4% being year-on-year, more heavily concentrated year-on-year in the first half of this year based upon the timing of when we entered into contracting. But importantly, and Kyle mentioned this earlier, is that exiting 2025, our net revenue per script is going to be very similar throughout all of 2026. So we did take a bit of a price through 2025, but do expect a lot of stability on the net price side as well as and most importantly, on the access side to continue to allow us to build this market.
And then Mark, on your competitor question, I've learned a lot over the course of my first full year as CEO and one of them is how to talk about competition. When it comes to CRENESSITY, we're really talking about two different programs, two different medicines in two different states. CRENESSITY and approved medicines had a great launch, and we have a multiple year head start. I think we've got a medicine that's changing the standard of care across efficacy, the safety, tolerability, the formulations and we're generating a lot of data over time. I think it leaves us in a really good position. And I think that you all listening on the phone, certainly, I've been doing that here. Looking at orphan drug launches, I'm really hard-pressed to see any medicine that delivers on the profile of CRENESSITY and is displaced at all by any future medicine. So I'm really excited about what we have with CRENESSITY. It's a to variable positive here for us. We've got a great medicine and a great team that's out there doing great things with the prescribers and patients that are there, and we're going to focus on building this brand into a great medicine for patients in the company.
We'll move next to Akash Tewari with Jefferies.
This is on for Akash. My question is on CRENESSITY as well, but more so on the pipeline, we saw that there's a Phase II study being initiated for patients under 4 years old, which we know is not currently on the label. Can you talk about kind of the importance of the study and when we should expect an update here? And could we expect this to be sort of a growth opportunity when and if on market for this population?
Yes. So as indicated, we are soon initiating 2032 which is a pediatric study. These are individuals less than 4 years of age, the youngest age being 3 months. And the intent is to expand our label which currently is 4 years and above. So again, we're excited about this opportunity. We should have some data next year on that study.
We'll move next to Sumant Kulkarni with Canaccord.
Bigger picture one here. It looks like you sold your U.K. and European commercial business recently. What does this mean for your plans to develop CRENESSITY in U.K. and the rest of Europe? And does that decision mean Neurocrine is going to remain U.S. focused? And how much did the potential enforcement of most favored nations pricing have to do that decision?
Yes. This is Kyle. I appreciate the question. I think when it comes to the EU business. The programs that we're working on over there weren't necessarily a good alignment we have for our own portfolio today. So -- we found a good place for those programs to go with a new team there. In terms of our own interest, obviously, we're focusing on the U.S. market now and making sure that we have a really good launch here with CRENESSITY and so far, so good there. And we want to keep focusing our attention there and look at ways we can potentially bring Krones and other future medicines to Europe. Right now, we're not really looking at considerations and variables that play in most favored nation per se as much as we are focusing on the U.S. market. But it is an area that is evolving. And before we make any decisions definitively outside the U.S., so I want to get clarity on where that's going here in terms of a policy standpoint.
We'll take our next question from Sean Laaman with Morgan Stanley.
I have a pipeline question on 890. Just going back to the recent data you showed for INGREZZA in the 80% receptor occupancy. It seems like a pretty high hurdle. So do you think you can beat that with 890 or is it really with 89 more about just expanding the population base through that long-acting long-acting profile?
Yes, a really good question because with INGREZZA, as you mentioned, we're actually doing really well from a receptor occupancy point of view. So with respect to 890, we're expecting at least the same receptor occupancy. But to your point, the potential for long-acting injectable formulations that's because of reduced clearance and also reduced aqueous solubility. So it's a molecule that really is designed to be both oral but administered relatively infrequently. And we think that could capture patients who are not doing so well or not so compliant on their current treatment.
Yes, just to add to that, we've certainly looked at that potential with INGREZZA over time, and it's not a well-suited molecule for that as well as other follow-on molecules that we've had over time. So we're quite excited, but we have with 890 and 675. Those are the next-generation VMAT2 inhibitors. And it's taken us a while to get a molecule that actually has a profile that we think is competitive or if not better than INGREZZA. So we're excited about getting this Phase II study up and running and looking to have data sometime towards the end of next year.
And we'll take our last question from Danielle Brill with Truist.
So I know we talked a lot about general barriers to prescribing CRENESSITY and mentioned a few times that 2/3 of your prescribers have written a single prescription. I guess I'm just trying to understand what's driving that pattern specifically. Like how many CAH patients do these physicians typically manage? What feedback are you hearing regarding barriers or hesitations to expand adoption more broadly for the specific prescribers patient basis at this point?
Yes, I think the circumstances are going to be different from physician to physician. But generally speaking, I think the two biggest factors here that are guiding the pace of adoption, especially with those that have written one prescription is really just the flow of patients into the practice. As I mentioned earlier, a lot of these community endocrinologists that are treating adult patients, they may only see their patients once a year. So that is a factor.
And then the second one is, and this is not unique to CRENESSITY. A lot of these physicians also when they start a patient, they want to see how it does and get some clinical experience a few months into treatment typically is when they would be starting the GC tapering. And anecdotally, what I'm hearing is that many of them are taking it easy in terms of just slowly bringing down the GC doses. So it's not sort of a forced down titration. So I think those two factors together kind of get at what might be inhibiting some of these doctors from getting their second or their third patient on treatment. But like I mentioned earlier, most community adult endocrinologists, if they have classic CAH in their practice only have a few patients.
So this is a market that is -- has a small number of what I'd call KOLs or experts and then a large number out in the community that have very few patients. And so it's an inch deep and a mile wide, so to speak. But in order for us to really optimize this opportunity, we have to reach and educate everyone and that's what we're doing. And obviously, we're very pleased with the first year and we expect to have a lot of success in 2026 and beyond.
Thank you. That does end the Q&A session for today's call. I would now like to hand the call back to Kyle for any additional or closing remarks.
Thanks, I want to thank you all for joining today and for the constructive discussion. During the call, we shared updates on our commercial performance and development programs as well as the outlook for the business. I want to be clear, our focus remains on disciplined execution as we think about 2026, which means a couple of things: Driving revenue growth and diversification with INGREZZA and CRENESSITY; advancing the pipeline and the process of delivering meaningful and in this process, delivering meaningful long-term value for patients and shareholders. We've got a lot of momentum that we're building this year for a data-rich 2027, and that's just going to be the tip of the iceberg. The way that the pipeline set up will deliver a constant flow of data starting from '27 and in future years. So in close, please don't hesitate to reach out on any of the topics that we discuss today. We look forward to continuing the dialogue with and meeting with many of you as we progress throughout the year. So thanks, again, and talk to you soon.
Thank you. This brings us to the end of today's meeting. We appreciate your time and participation. You may now disconnect.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Q4 2025 Earnings Call
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — 44th Annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference
1. Question Answer
All right. Let's go ahead and get started. Welcome, everyone, to the 44th Annual JPMorgan Healthcare Conference. My name is Anupam Rama. I am one of the senior biotech analyst here at JPMorgan. I'm joined by my squad, [ Rati Pinhe ], Priyanka Grover and [ Joyce Sao ]. Yes, I almost called her JZ. That's what I normally do. Our next presenting company is Neurocrine. And presenting on behalf of the company, we have Kyle Gano, CEO.
Thanks, Anupam, and thanks to the JPMorgan Squad and JPMorgan for having Neurocrine here at be on the first day. It really is a great way to kick off the week and year for the company. So maybe just to kick things off here, some housekeeping. I will be making forward-looking statements. I'd like to direct you all to our latest SEC filings for the risk factors of the business.
With that behind us, then, I really would like to ground everyone here on two overarching themes that are important for Neurocrine for 2026. One here, as you can see from the slides, strong and building momentum and the other strategic balanced diversification. So I would like to touch on these in the first slide and then pull that these themes through as I go through the presentation this morning.
So just to kick off on momentum, where I'm talking about here, we all took physics back in college, the literal physics definition of momentum mass times velocity. I like equations. I use them a lot when I speak. I think for today, it's a good example for me to lean on. For Neurocrine, we have more mass, more velocity than ever before. With 2,000 people at the company, we have a proven track record of discovering, developing and commercializing medicines for patients.
In fact, you can see from this slide, we have four FDA-approved medicines on the market. All these were first-in-class at the time of their approval. We commercialize INGREZZA and CRENESSITY here in the U.S. ourselves. Now this slide here has a lot of information. So I'm going to just touch on a few things on INGREZZA and CRENESSITY. We're still in 2025. We haven't reported Q4, so I'm giving you some 2025 insights into the business. In 2025, we guided INGREZZA to $2.5 billion to $2.55 billion in net sales. And for CRENESSITY, our first full year of commercialization of the medicine, I'm reporting the first 9 months, $166 million in net sales. So a great kickoff, great start to CRENESSITY. Now on INGREZZA, we built it into a blockbuster franchise. We've got multiple dosage strengths, formulations. For CRENESSITY, we see a line of sight with it being our next blockbuster in a rare endocrine disease called classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia.
Building things takes execution, and we have a lot of that going on at the company right now, not just in day-to-day activities, but for both of these brands, we're actually undergoing a sales force expansion currently. We can talk more about that when we break out to our Q&A here at the end or during the week, but a lot of execution going on, on the commercial side of the business. And likewise, we're executing on a leading neuropsychiatry portfolio, which we believe is poised to bring to patients multiple first and best-class medicines this decade.
So a lot of momentum, a lot of execution in 2026. What about diversification? Well, until a few years ago, Neurocrine was a single product company. This is with INGREZZA, and we were singularly focused on small molecules. Well, that's not the case anymore. We are scaled. I mentioned the employee base that we have, and we are a diversified biopharmaceutical company now. And CRENESSITY plays a big role in that. You can see from the slide here, sales and revenue are company from another product for the first time since INGREZZA's approval in 2017. These 2 products will work together to grow revenue over time as well as revenue diversification, which is an important goal for the company. Likewise, we see the opportunity to provide continued durable cash flows and both medicines will allow us to have a very solid foundation from which to invest in R&D over the long term.
So that's the commercial side of the diversification. What about R&D? Well, we're using our transform R&D engine, which I'll talk a little bit about today. It's fully operational. It's delivering, it's performing. We're leaning on that as well as 30 years in CRF biology. CRF is corticotropin releasing factor, and we're diversifying into new therapeutic areas. We have as much biology but much experience as we do, moving into new modality in this space or new disease state is very efficient. So we like what we're doing here with our engine in R&D as well as in CRF. Now in terms of our pipeline, we also see strategic diversification as well. I mentioned the small molecule focus historically. We're moving into new modalities, peptides, antibodies, gene therapies.
And these are all anchored around this mindset that we have, a philosophy, if you will, matching the right modality with the right target in a given disease. And likewise, we think about these modalities, they're going to offer us the opportunity to improve probability of success ultimately as we move these through clinical development. It's done with a disciplined mix for the first time of internal innovation. We're doing more internally. And of course, we're always going to lean on strategic business development to help accelerate what we would like to do in the pipeline.
So if you think about what we've done here, there's a lot of growth in the company in the past 7 to 10 years, and we're not growing for growth's sake. It's been strategic. It's been deliberate, allows us to minimize or helps us improve our probability of success across the portfolio, helps us be more resilient in the long term. And by looking at those different pieces, it also allows us to focus on our areas that we have the most expertise. So if you think about this, our overarching themes that I've shared, you can understand why we believe we're entering one of the most exciting opportunity times and moments here at Neurocrine in our history.
So that's what I'm going to try to share in a part with you today and what we're planning for 2026 and beyond. So the heart and soul of the company is our R&D engine. It was this time last year that I presented what we're trying to achieve in an R&D transformation. It was last month that I told you that our R&D engine is fully operational. I think this slide goes a long way of making that transformation tangible. I just mentioned to a moment ago what the goal is here. And the idea is from a philosophy perspective to remain disciplined and always match the right modality to a given target in a disease of interest. And that's exactly what we've been able to do and focus on the past several years. And that discipline has given us an increase in our productivity.
And what we're looking at from a year-to-year basis at steady state, targeting 4 new Phase I programs, advancing 2 new Phase II programs and have a sustained Phase III portfolio of at least 3 programs. And we believe if we continue doing this level of output year after year, we'll be able to meet our objective of one new medicine every 2 years. So that's the plan. It's going to take a few years for us to move all of our early clinical entrants from Phase I to Phase II and Phase III. That's why we believe we'll be at steady state by the end of this decade.
Now this model isn't theoretical. We have achieved for the first time our Phase I through Phase III metrics in 2025. And as you'll see as we go through our pipeline for this year, we're well on our way of doing it again. So building on the momentum of our R&D engine is our neuropsychiatry portfolio. And there's a lot going on across the pipeline in this area. It's an area of key expertise and strength for the company. It also represents long-term value creation for us when you think about what's going on in early-stage development all the way to Phase III. What's -- the main point that I'd like to leave with you all here today is that psychiatry and neurology is inherently risky. And we anchor all of our programs, all of our targets around validated biology. It doesn't give you certainty with success, but it does help your odds.
So when we think about our first-in-class AMPA-PAM, this is one of the most compelling programs in the area of major depressive disorder today, but it leans on validated biology within the glutamate system, was validated by ketamine and other psychedelics over the past many decades. So we're really excited about this program, spectacular Phase II results. Clinically meaningful, statistically significant, very good safety and tolerability. That's why we pushed this program into Phase III as quickly as we could in order to get this medicine to patients. Now direclidine, we could say the same thing. It's our selective muscarinic M4 agonist, again, for schizophrenia, as you know. It's in all of its Phase III trials currently, and we started a Phase II trial in bipolar mania towards the end of last year. Osavampator and direclidine, in my opinion, if you look at them together, represent medicines that can really change the standard of care for patients.
And if you look at their biology, it intersects so many different disease states. I mentioned 2 for direclidine. It gives us the opportunity for many chances for long-term value creation as we pursue other indications. Now you can see from this slide, there's a lot of breadth and depth to the muscarinic portfolio. We have agonist, we have antagonists. We have molecules in different disease states. We have them in different stages. Again, very deliberate and intentional how we put this together. Given the multitude of the programs, it gives us the opportunity to tackle many different patient population that increases probability of success.
And it gives us the opportunity to really play in some of the largest disease states and markets in the world today. So we really like what's happening there with the muscarinic portfolio. On the VMAT2 side of the pipeline, you can see that we're advancing 2 new next-generation VMAT2 inhibitors. The sole purpose here is to extend our leadership position in VMAT2 biology that was set by INGREZZA 20 years ago. We have 2 molecules in development, NBI-'890 and '675. These were internally discovered molecules with physical chemical properties that are distinct from INGREZZA, and we believe this will give us the opportunity to reach many more patients.
So if you look at INGREZZA, you look at '890 and '675, this is a category that's built for the long run and can do -- allow us to continue to have this leadership position. So building on the momentum of our neuropsychiatry portfolio is our emerging endocrinology pipeline. And today, endocrinology is CRF. Everything goes through CRF in the company right now, whether you're talking about our two-pronged strategy, which comprises CRF1 tackling HPA Axis dysregulated diseases or if you're looking at CRF2 in metabolic diseases and disorders. Again, this is the power of working in this space for 30 years. This also gives you the ability to strategically diversify, whether you're talking about moving a small molecule program like CRENESSITY into a peptide for the same disease state, very incremental diversification required for there or you're taking a CRF1 mechanism and moving to CRF2 in metabolic disorders.
These are all things that are common and familiar to us. So what I'd like to walk you through is a little bit about the strategy, and that will set the stage for the remainder of the presentation. On the left here, you can see that the foundation is being set by CRENESSITY, our medicine for classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia. We have a next-generation peptide moving through development that's NBIP-'1435. I'll share with you some data on that shortly. That's going to be a first-in-class subcutaneous injectable for patients with CAH, giving them greater flexibility, as you'll see from the PK profile, perhaps even enhanced efficacy.
Beyond that, we'll be introducing a new molecule to clinical development later this year, [ MBI-188 ] that will lean into the same pathway, but for women's health disease. So stay tuned on that. We'll share more when that starts clinical development. Now on the other side of our strategy is CRF2. This allows us to extend our leadership position set by CRENESSITY into a related area of biology. But our first program in this space is centered in obesity. Our first molecule here is MBIP-'2118. It's set to be a once-weekly injectable for patients that are obese or for obesity as an indication with a clear product profile that differentiates it from current standard of care, namely, we're looking at comparable levels of efficacy as incretins or better, improved GI tolerability, a very simplified titration schedule or the absence of the need of titration.
And when we think about obesity, what we're also targeting is quality weight loss. So we're looking at weight loss targeting fat versus lean mass. So muscle mass preservation is a key cornerstone of what we would like to do on this right-hand side of our two-pronged strategy in CRF. Now by quality weight loss, we understand and we've seen out there in the news how the loss of lean mass can decrease metabolic outcomes. We also see that as a key driver of long-term tolerability concerns with some of the GLPs and other incretins that are on the market. We're tackling all these with one singular mechanism, CRF2. So we believe we have a very differentiated approach in an area that we believe we have deep institutional knowledge in.
Now we're not just done with '2118. This is a must-win category. We're moving these programs quickly through clinical development. We also have a combination approach. So we've developed our own proprietary incretin in-house. It's a [ GGG ]. You can see some of the details here of how we characterized it. We're doing a mix and match strategy with '2118, and we've also conjugated it directly to [ '2018 ] as a stand-alone treatment. This approach offers all the benefits of the '2118 program exactly, but potentially greater weight loss than the single agent itself. So we're excited to offer that to patients moving forward.
And then lastly, I'll call out here moving through late-stage preclinical development is our own long-acting proprietary [ GGG ] that's been conjugated to an Fc portion of an antibody, giving us a differentiated approach still, and that can be combined with NBIP-'2118. So a very rich endocrinology pipeline, and I would say it's a very rich CRF pipeline. Both of these are used interchangeably at Neurocrine and rely on a lot of history that we've developed here at the company. So with that kind of setting the stage, I'd like to go back to where it all started, and that's with CRENESSITY. We have some new data, in particular, 2-year results related to our open-label extension from the CAHtalyst studies, which we branded for the adult and pediatric double-blind placebo trials that were used for approval. I'm going to share some highlights here with you today.
And just appreciate this is hot off the press data. We have a lot of data sets that are currently being reviewed, and we're preparing abstracts and presentation posters that will be made available to you all at upcoming endocrinology meetings this spring and certainly by ENDO in June. So I've got 3 different areas that I'm going to touch on. I'm going to summarize at a high level what we've seen across the adult and pediatric studies that's going to be done here. I'll give you a little bit of data from the adult OLE or open-label extension, and I'll share some data in the pediatric patient population. There is a breadth of information that is incredible coming out of this open-label extension work that we've done. There's a lot of depth that's there that's going to be coming out over the next couple of months.
I can't get through all of that here. I'm going to give you a little flavors of it, so you can get a feel for what's coming your way. So when we think about the adults and pediatrics, what we can say is after 2 years of treatment with CRENESSITY, very robust, sustained clinically meaningful benefits over that entire period of time. These are the type of outcomes that you want to see in a real-world setting. If you'll drill down a little bit more, what I'm talking about here is CRENESSITY enables the reduction of androgens and ACTH and maintains them at that level through the course of treatment. CRENESSITY enables steroid reduction and to levels that bring a very high percentage of patients into that physiological range.
At the same time, these same patients have their androgens maintained at baseline levels. So very robust, durable efficacy results there. On safety and tolerability at 2 years, CRENESSITY continues to be very, very well tolerated. We have an 80% retention rate across this 2-year time point. No new safety warnings or safety issue signals. But most importantly, now we've accumulated 35,000 patient weeks of exposure. Very good safety, very good tolerability across the board. So if you put these 2 together, you understand why CRENESSITY is an anchor of our endocrinology pipeline and anchor of what we want to do in CRF. Now let's drill down and talk a little bit about the CAHtalyst adult study quickly.
Here, we're able to show that about 70% of patients were taken to the physiological range of 11 milligrams per meter squared per day. That's a threshold that was agreed upon by us with the FDA for our pivotal studies. At the same time, these same patients that came into the study were able to show that their androgen levels were maintained at baseline levels. So a very good 1, 2 punch there coming out of this open-label extension data at month 12, 18 and 24 over the entire treatment period. Now I should have mentioned at the introduction of this slide that the key objective for adults with CAH is to reduce excessive exposure to steroids and therefore, minimize cardiometabolic comorbidities like obesity, insulin resistance. So we see this great data on moving patients into the physiological range, but how does that transform the trajectory of their cardiometabolic parameters.
And what I have to share with you today is on the obesity side of things, since that's a theme here, patients coming into the double-blind placebo-controlled portion, about 80% of those patients were obese or overweight. During this 2-year period, about 40% of those went on to see a 5% or greater weight loss. So a very impressive data set there. When you line the efficacy with this change in cardiometabolic trajectory, you can see that the objectives were exactly met here in this open-label extension in terms of what adults with CAH patients are looking for. So very strong data there in the adult side of the equation. What about pediatrics? Pediatrics are a patient population in CAH that present their own clinical context that's distinct from adults. There's a range of symptoms and a range of treatment goals that these patients aspire for over the course of their maturation.
Depending on age, they could be very much focused on avoiding adrenal crisis or they could be looking at ways that they can maximize their potential height. These are all these things that we keep in mind when we think about studies in the pediatric patient population. But for us, it all starts with ACTH. And then we talk a lot about androstenedione, but ACTH is a very critical hormone, especially in the maturing child as they go from adolescents to teenage and ultimately adult years. So why is ACTH so important? Well, in CAH, as you can recall from my prior slide, it's a disease of HPA Axis dysregulation. And what this translates to is ACTH overproduction. So it's a very -- looking at ACTH is a very important role for us because we can look at target engagement and understand that we're making a difference in the underlying disease that we can remove or reduce excess of ACTH.
You can see that from looking at the 12, 18 and 24 months data, we can do that exactly with CRENESSITY. The other thing that I'd point out about ACTH is that normal ACTH functioning is critical for normal physiological functioning. The body has compensatory mechanisms to fight things like adrenal insufficiency to help the body grow and have normal development.
Having normal ACTH signaling is critical in that process. And the last thing I will say, and it's related to my previous message is that ACTH as a hormone activates multiple receptor types. I know on the adrenal gland, the HPA Axis components of CAH, we often refer to melanocortin 2. But ACTH activates melanocortin 1, melanocortin 3, melanocortin 4 and melanocortin 5. You don't want to be overactivating the receptors continuously during the course of a child's life. And that's exactly what's happening today in a CAH patient that's not on CRENESSITY or in a CAH patient that may receive a different approach that's in development now or in the future. So we believe our approach is very differentiating and able to -- being able to reduce this excess of ACTH in patients and maintain them at a level that allows for normal ACTH signaling.
A related point to that, just to wrap up this slide, CRENESSITY does not bind to or affect vasopressin-induced ACTH release, and it's a very important distinction because when patients use CRENESSITY, they're allowed to have the normal ACTH-mediated immune stress response. And that, in turn, is one of those mechanisms that the body uses to fight or resist adrenal crises, adrenal insufficiency. And in our trials, we saw very low rates of adrenal insufficiency. In fact, in the pediatric double-blind portion of this CAHtalyst program, we saw 0. And in the adult study, we saw a very low rate of 1.6% and the active and placebo were exactly the same. So taken together with CRENESSITY, we can show that we can enable ACTH dose reduction or ACTH excess reduction and maintain them at this level, and we can also affect the underlying biology of the disease.
Now I mentioned on the prior slide that one of the important treatment goals for patients is to maximize patient height. Now while our CAHtalyst study wasn't designed to do so, in fact, most of the patients coming into the double-blind portion of the pediatric trial were pubertal and we were not able to really see much significant growth during the course of the study, there was a subset that was. They were prepubertal, and they did have the opportunity to grow, especially in a long-term open-label extension like this for a 2-year period. We have some data coming through on those subjects. And in a subset that we've analyzed, we've shown that we are able to slow the bone age advancement in these patients. In fact, if you look at their data a little bit more closely, we predict that their adult height will increase by roughly 5.5 centimeters or over 2 inches. This is a very clinically meaningful result in a study of the [indiscernible] , especially since we weren't looking to achieve this at the outset in terms of a primary or secondary endpoint.
So very robust results. Let me just put a pin in it because oftentimes, picture says a thousand words. In a pediatric CAH patient, their bone age advances more quickly than their chronological age. And the way that physicians often view this is looking at their growth chart curves, for example, on the right. Y-axis, height, X-axis here, bone age and chronological age. In an ideal world, in a patient without CAH, their bone age and chronological age track each other. And the red circles and the green triangles are right on top of each other. You can see here when a subject, in this case, an 8-year-old entered this open-label extension, their chronological age was separated significantly from their bone age from 8 versus 13.5 years. When they started CRENESSITY, we were essentially arresting their bone age advancement. And over this 2-year period, you see a collapsing between the bone age and chronological age.
This is exactly what you want to see. It maximizes the time this patient is able to grow. So this is something we'll be teasing out a lot more as we get into the data set, but very compelling, very broad data sets coming out of this OLE. Now CRENESSITY sets the foundation, but we're hardly done yet. We want to be a leader in this field. That's why we have a next-generation medicine in Phase I development. I'm sharing you all here today data for the first time. Some of the interesting aspects of it, we've looked at 4 different cohorts in our Phase I study.
So far, it's been safe and well tolerated. We see a half-life of about 10 days. This supports infrequent dosing. In fact, we're believing that this is going to be 1 week or better subcutaneous injection for patients. The next steps in quickly on this is that, obviously, we know the pathway to approval. That's been set by CRENESSITY. So we'll be following a similar path. Right now, we're looking at finding the right dose or doses to take into mid- to late-stage development, and we're able to do that through a [indiscernible] challenge test to determine the PD effect following ACTH stimulation.
This part of the Phase I program is ongoing now. We'll look at starting Phase II/III later this year. So that's NBIP-'1435. Now if we look at all the slides I've shared, we've done a lot today. I've shared with you about the science, the data, the CRF platform, how does this all pull together? Well, we've got 12 programs in clinical development today, 8 in Phase I, 2 in Phase II and another 2 in Phase III. They've been developed and put into these stages deliberately intentionally. They're all founded in our areas of strength, neurology, psychiatry, endocrinology and all attached to validated biology. Those are things that we like.
From a modality perspective, you see expansion into peptides and biologics and even gene therapies. We see some of the studies that will be initiated this year, again, all founded on the premise of matching the right modality with the right target. So we've got late-stage opportunities, mid-stage opportunities and future opportunities for growth with Phase I programs. We're not trying to initiate studies for initiating study's sake. They're all built around a robust R&D engine, pipeline prioritization and making sure that we convert all of our science into clinical execution. So quickly, we've got 6 programs that we're planning on initiating in Phase I this year. Our Friedreich's ataxia program for gene therapy will enter in the second half. We've mentioned our 2 obesity programs.
Those are starting this year as well. Our other program in HPA Axis dysregulation, another CRF antagonist will be starting and 2 new immunology programs. So a lot going on at Neurocrine and to deliver our pipeline is a lot of execution. I've touched on that already. I think I'll leave some of those topics for Q&A. But in terms of study new initiatives -- new study initiations, excuse me, what we've got in addition to the 6 new Phase Is, 4 new Phase II trials to help round out some of the work with CRENESSITY as well as moving forward our next-generation VMAT2 inhibitor, '567 in an Alzheimer's trial and of course, our next-generation medicine for CRENESSITY. So a lot going on there. These do meet our R&D objectives for the year. In fact, we're exceeding the targets that I mentioned early on, which is a good thing. That means we're accelerating us down that path for reaching steady state.
So all this execution leads to momentum in 2027. It's all about getting to our Phase III readouts for osavampator and direclidine. Again, these are medicines that will change the standard of care across both MDD and schizophrenia. With that data being positive, NDA submissions follow and then commercializations shortly thereafter. The sales force expansion that we're rolling out for INGREZZA will be quite nice for the receiving of these medicines once they're available later this decade.
Phase I data we're looking for in 2027 pertains to our gene therapy program in Friedreich's ataxia. We also have an anticipate weight loss data from our first CRF2 peptide in some of our early Phase I studies. And then in Phase I, we expect safety and biomarker data coming out of our muscarinic program and our early immunology program. So a lot of data flow, a lot of data coming out over the next couple of years, starting with '27 and then a regular flow from thereafter. I will mention, I should have said in the previous slide, we will be having a Neurocrine webinar day later this year to go over some of the early neurology and immunology assets that are not characterized here today. So I think with that, I'd like to jump into Q&A. Why don't we have our team come up and we could take your questions. But thank you very much for hearing out today. Look forward to meeting with you all this week.
Just quickly introduce everybody that's on stage.
Yes. So a quick introduction here as folks come up. Sanjay Keswani here at the end is our new Chief Medical Officer. He joined in June. So anything R&D in the pipeline, please ask him. I know he's anxious to answer many of your questions. Jude Onyia is our Chief Scientific Officer. He joined the company in November of 2021. He's really the engineer behind our R&D engine that I described early on. Eric Benevich is here as well, our Chief Commercial Officer, I know you very well. You know very well. Samir Siddhanti is our Head of Business Development and Strategy; and of course, Matt Abernethy, our CFO.
Kyle, I was wondering if you could put into context what you're seeing in the first year of launch for CRENESSITY? And how does it compare to some of your analogs or internal expectations?
Well, since I've been talking for 25 minutes, and we have our Chief Commercial Officer here. Eric, do you want to give your thoughts?
Yes. In a word, it's beat our expectations. Just to level set everyone, classic CAH, CRENESSITY is the first approved treatment. These patients have been living with a standard of care of supraphysiologic glucocorticoids for over 7 decades. And going into the launch, so we're just past 1 year of the approval of CRENESSITY. You may recall, it got approved in mid-December of '24. Certainly, in some ways, there are some aspects of this launch that are similar to what we experienced with INGREZZA in tardive dyskinesia. It's a first-in-class and a first-in-disease medicine. And we've characterized this as a learning launch. So what I would say is that we've learned a lot over the first year, and there's 3 areas that I think have been favorable versus our expectation. The first is really the receptivity from the patient and endocrinology communities.
The uptake has been faster than what we expected coming out of the gate really since the very beginning. And the adoption rate has been very steady and consistent. And I should characterize my comments as really for the first 3 quarters of 2025. We're not making any inter-quarter commentary here. But very consistent in terms of the rate of adoption from week to week and from month to month. The second thing that's been really favorable versus our expectations has been the reimbursement. So we expected as a new medicine without any formulary coverage that most of these patients would require a month or possibly 2 of free goods before getting reimbursement from their insurance company. And what we found really since the very beginning is that most of these patients were able to get commercially reimbursed coverage within a week. And so reimbursement has been very favorable.
And then the third thing that's been favorable from our perspective has been the persistency. Kyle talked about that with regards to the 2-year open-label extension. And certainly, we saw a very strong persistency in the double-blind studies as well. Over 90% of patients in the adult and pediatric studies completed and rolled over into the open-label extension. And as Kyle said, over 80 have completed through 2 years in that open-label study. So our real-world experience has been that these patients get started on treatment and they tend to stay on treatment. And so between the very steady and consistent rate of adoption and then patients staying on therapy, we've really seen a nice growth curve in terms of our ability to really help that patient population.
So overall, we're really pleased with the first year, but we recognize that we've got a long way to go. There's approximately 20,000 or so classic CAH patients in the U.S. as we estimate. And we've made a penetration of roughly 10% of that in the first year. And so we're looking forward to helping many more patients with classic CAH in '26 and beyond.
Kyle, you presented some new 2-year CAH data just today, hot off the press. I was wondering, Eric, if I could have you expand on your comments just now about how these types of data could help you commercially as you're going into the second year and launch here.
Sure. If you think about what's going to allow us to continue to develop the CAH opportunity to help more patients, there's a couple of things. One, Kyle touched on this, the really favorable safety profile. We've got very good labeling, and we also have very good long-term safety with over 35,000 patient weeks of exposure to date. I think that's very reassuring for endocrinologists and for patients when they're contemplating initiating treatment. So that's one thing. The second thing, and Kyle mentioned this earlier, is that we are expanding our CRENESSITY sales team. And really, I would characterize that as building on momentum and building on growth. The reason that we're doing it, and I mentioned this last night at our dinner, had we known some of the things that we've learned in the first year of the launch, we probably would have launched with a larger sales team.
And so ultimately, this gives us the ability to go deeper within the endocrinology audience and also to start to tap into some of the patients that are not currently under the care of an endocrinologist, for example, that are being cared for in a primary care practice or an OB/GYN practice. So I think those are going to be some of the drivers of growth. And then, of course, the continued strong reimbursement that we've been seeing really since the very beginning of the launch.
Sanjay, do you want to comment on the data?
Yes. I think Eric made some really important points there. The long-term safety and tolerability we have in patients with CAH is really outstanding. We're very happy about that. And that's particularly important for physicians and parents of patients who are often young children because this is a medication they'll be taking potentially for many, many years. The other thing is that we've seen the long-term consequences of steroid reduction as people in this room are aware, chronic steroid use is associated with weight gain, glucose abnormalities, including type 2 diabetes, bone issues, including osteoporosis. And we've seen some really encouraging data with respect to weight loss, improved insulin resistance and also advancement or attenuation of advancement of bone age, which is incredibly important, particularly as children are growing, you ideally want them to achieve their full potential with respect to adult height.
And essentially, the earlier we intervene, the better, and that's what we're seeing in our studies. So really very excited and encouraged by the data we're seeing.
So as a parent of a CAH patient, I think many of you guys know that my son was the first patient on CRENESSITY, which is quite a blessing to be part of a company like this. And looking at that bone age curve, I think I said this to Priyanka, that's golden. If you're a parent walking into a clinician's office with an 8-year-old with a 13- or 14-year-old bone age, that doesn't feel very good. But 2 years into taking CRENESSITY to see that bone age to chronological age gap shrink like that by 2 years, that's quite remarkable.
So it is encouraging to see these data, and I can speak as a parent to both see the efficacy there as well as safety, is quite phenomenal. So kudos to [ Eiry ], who's not here for the first time in helping develop the medicine and everybody who's been a part of the launch. It's been quite rewarding.
Matt, thank you for sharing that. And I think that's a great place to end. Thank you so much.
Thanks so much.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Special Call - Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc.
1. Management Discussion
Good morning, and good afternoon. My name is Todd Tushla, I'm the Vice President of Investor Relations at Neurocrine Biosciences. And on behalf of our entire company, welcome to our 2025 R&D Day, whether you're here in person, on the webcast or reading the transcript, we're grateful for your time. We will be making forward-looking statements today.
So I refer you to our latest SEC disclosures. Our speakers for today from Neurocrine will be Kyle Gano, Chief Executive Officer; Sanjay Keswani, our Chief Medical Officer; and Jude Onyia, our Chief Scientific Officer.
As far as tenure at Neurocrine, Sanjay joined us in June. Jude joined us in 2021, and Kyle joined us in 2001. Wow, that was a long time ago. We're also fortunate to have with us today Dr. John Krystal, a world-leading expert in the field of neurology and psychiatry and a Professor at Yale University. Dr. Krystal, thank you for being here. Dr. Krystal will be joined on stage by Jaz Singh, our Vice President Of Neuropsychiatry Development for a KOL discussion.
The agenda over the course of roughly 3 hours. I'll be turning things over shortly to Kyle, who will provide opening remarks. We'll then have Sanjay come up and provide an overview of our industry-leading neuropsychiatry portfolio. We'll then have Dr. Krystal and Jaz come up for a moderated KOL session. Following that session, we'll open it up to the audience for questions to Dr. Krystal. They're going to cover a lot of ground on osavampator and direclidine. So hopefully, you find that engaging and ask some good questions for Dr. Krystal. We'll then take a quick 5-minute break. After that 5-minute intermission, we'll transition to Jude, who will come up and provide an update on Neurocrine's R&D transformation progress since he last spoke to the investment community 2 years ago. We'll then open it up for the second round of questions from the audience, and then Kyle will provide closing remarks.
Now for those of you who have made the track to Southern California, and I know it wasn't easy, but for those who have made it, there's nothing quite like having tacos from world-famous seaside market for lunch. So we'll provide you launch out in the quad outside. It's a beautiful day here in San Diego, and you'll have a chance to interact with Neurocrine leadership in a very informal friendly setting.
So with that, that's the agenda. It's time to turn it over to Kyle Gano, Chief Executive Officer of Neurocrine.
Thanks, Todd, and good morning, and welcome, everyone. Thanks for being here today. It's great to have you all here with us together on this occasion, Neurocrine's 2026 R&D Day. In case you're wondering, for those of you coming in from New York, I think it's supposed to be about 32, 34. It's going to be 30 degrees warmer than that here, 35 degrees warmer than that today. So I hope you're able to get out and enjoy a little bit of the weather here in San Diego. If you came just in time or if you're here earlier this week, hopefully, you got some time out and to enjoy what San Diego has to offer.
So a couple of things. Welcome to our beautiful new campus here. I'm reminded 2 things every day when I come into the office, I'm reminded how far we've come over the years. The company was created back in the early 1990s, and some of the members of that team are in this room today, but we started in a garage about 5 miles down the road. So if you think about starting in a garage to coming to this campus, you really do get reminded on how far you've come.
The other one is, is that many years ago, I was a chemist, and I come into this campus every day and I see our labs, and I think to myself, boy, I could have really been something if I would have had these labs when I was going through graduate school. But those are all things now that our employees get to enjoy here. And the other point that I'd bring up about this campus is that it represents this year the first time all the departments from research to development to commercialization are all under one roof.
And I know I'm incredibly excited to have us all here. I think many of the employees feel the same way. As we move into 2026 that would be the first full year that will all be together. So going to meetings, walking across campus. These are all things that we used to have to drive to because many of our labs were not located in the same spot of our previous headquarters. So a very exciting time. We're hoping to share that with you today. We've got some tours planned, I think, this afternoon.
So I would encourage you to take part in those and see what we have ongoing here at Neurocrine. A couple of pieces of just housekeeping for me. I do want to thank you for your time and interest in coming out all this way, especially this time of year, especially some of the difficulties in traveling. We know you have other things that you could be doing. And for Neurocrine really is an opportunity for us to share with you why we think we're moving into a new era here.
So to that end, today is going to be all about really showing you the depth, the momentum and the focus and future of our science and pipeline. I think given our success with INGREZZA and CRENESSITY, we're actually going to pause and also reinforce our ability to convert innovation, innovative science to life-changing medicines. And you're not going to hear a whole lot about INGREZZA and CRENESSITY today, and that's by design. It's all about research and development today. So beyond a few opening remarks about these in my introduction, you're not going to hear much from Sanjay or Jude. Again, that's deliberate.
But as we think about the future then, it's going to be sharing with you today what's in store in terms of our innovation across research and development, our near to midterm value drivers, and then we'll give you a feel for where the R&D is pointed in terms of the future.
Now before I get into my opening remarks, I would like to pause a little bit. Todd mentioned who's going to be joining me today, colleagues wise, to help me speak and share with you what's going on. He's very formal in his presentation of Dr. Sanjay Keswani and Dr. Jude Onyia. Our management team, we travel a lot together. In many ways, I spend more time with them than my family. So the reason why I'm saying this is that when I refer to them in my introduction and my close, you're going to hear me say, Sanjay and Jude. That's how I know them. So you may hear that as we go through the presentation.
So I just want to give you that heads up that that's the familiar way that we refer to each other here at Neurocrine. It's part of our culture. But together, Sanjay, Jude and our entire research team, really across our enterprise, past couple of years, in particular, we've transformed our research and development capabilities into a real competitive advantage. And it's with that view that me personally and others, we believe we're well on our track of becoming that next great U.S. biopharmaceutical company.
So like most R&D days, there's always themes, takeaways I'd like to frame the discussion here for you as well. First, kind of going back to my opening remarks and theme, I believe Neurocrine's is entering a new era. We're moving away from a single product biotech company to a multiproduct diversified biopharmaceutical company with scale. And by scale, I mean here's our headquarters, you're seeing it today. We have 2,000 employees. We have capabilities across research, development, commercialization, and we have 2 commercial products. That's very rare.
In our space, we did all that here in San Diego, and it's rare for San Diego itself. If you think about INGREZZA, CRENESSITY, there's a few more times you're going to hear this. Both of these products provide revenue and revenue diversification growth for the near to midterm, long term and really provide durable cash flows. Those 2 pieces give us a strong foundation from which to invest in R&D. And that's really why we're here today.
Second, we're executing on an industry-leading neuropsychiatry portfolio. It's positioned to deliver multiple best and first-in-class medicines this decade. So before 2030, that's what we're looking at here. Programs like osavampator for major depressive disorder, direclidine in schizophrenia, our next-generation VMAT2 inhibitor programs. These all anchor a differentiated neuropsychiatry portfolio and I haven't even touched the muscarinics yet. Our scaled muscarinic franchise focuses on orthosteric agonist and antagonist.
We're the only company that has these. So it does provide a competitive advantage as well versus other companies in this space. Third, we have an R&D engine that's fully transformed, fully operational. And in my view, it's over delivering on innovative science today. In fact, you'll see through some of the work from Sanjay and Jude when they present it.
We're delivering more high-quality programs faster and across more modalities than ever before. I'm only going to have one more slide on the R&D engine because I don't want to steal Jude's thunder. I'm going to let him go through the updates that he has from the last time he presented on our R&D engine. But needless to say, I'm very excited about what's going on in the research side of the organization.
Fourth, we're going to be leaning into our 30 years of experience and expertise in CRF biology, by CRF, I mean corticotropin-releasing factor. It's the same underlying biology that is tied to CRENESSITY's success in CH. We're going to lean into that, and we're going to have a two-pronged strategy moving forward. One is we're going to have next follow-on medicines that will combine with CRENESSITY over time, employing and utilizing the CRF1 mechanism, antagonists in particular, and we're going to be expanding that portfolio into CRF2 agonist, in particular peptides. And this is going to take us into a range and metabolic disorders, including obesity, and our first program is going to be targeting weight loss with muscle preservation. You'll see some really interesting data on that today.
So our lead program, NBIP-2118 is going to be in the clinic in the first half of next year. So if you put all these pieces together, I hope it paints a picture of a time of sustained catalyst between now and end of this decade. Now of course, we're going to have an early-stage pipeline that's always going to deliver Phase I data. It's pretty rich today. That's going to be important because that's going to define the mid-stage pipeline. But more importantly, in 2027, you're going to see all of our Phase III trials start reading out osavampator in MDD, direclidine in schizophrenia. You're going to hear today that direclidine has already started its bipolar mania Phase II trial that's going to read out the same type frame. And we also just initiated a Phase II trial in schizophrenia with our dual M1/M4 agonist that will read out in the same time frame as well.
And then I just mentioned NBIP-2118, which will deliver data in patients over that same time frame. So a lot going on over the next few years. It does require very exquisite execution, and that's something that we'll continue to do over time. So those were the key messages. I would like to take a moment and remind the audience, those listening in that my history here at Neurocrine you heard I was -- I've been here for about 25 years.
In fact, some of you know, I started here as a summer intern, which funny joke there is probably that our HR program really has a really good program for entrants coming into Neurocrine if you're interested. But in terms of our history as well as my own, it is founded in neurology, psychiatry, endocrinology and immunology. In fact, I'd like to spend a little -- a few minutes telling you about that history because I think it's important here.
It does take us back to the 1990s -- early 1990s, I mentioned, we started in a garage, now on the road. But with foundational contributions across the 4 therapeutic areas, and with help from our founders, Dr. Wylie Vale, the Salk Institute, brought us in all that corticotropin-releasing factor biology. And that took us into a lot of areas that spanned neurology to immunology. And then the other half of our founding technology came out of Dr. Larry Steinman's lab at Stanford. He contributed what we called ultra peptide ligands and that took us into endocrinology and neurology via multiple sclerosis.
So if you look across the field today, you'll see their science still influence a lot of companies and the work that they're pursuing. And if I think about Neurocrine, we followed that science ourselves over the past 30 years, and we follow the science that's come from that. And that's taken us to areas that's required patience, persistence and original thinking to stay true to those therapeutic areas that we're investing in.
So a couple of pieces that I'd mention about that time being a company that's been around for 30 years, you develop a culture. You develop a focus on how you tackle problems, and that's what this was able to allow us to do. The culture that came from these 30 years, 3 decades worth of work served as a basis, stayed true to those areas that our teams can innovate at the highest level. It also gave us the insights on what it takes to win on complex biology. And what we did over this time frame before you know, you wake up and you find out that you have deep institutional knowledge that no other companies possess.
So for us today, if you think about kind of the sequence of things, it's INGREZZA, it's neuropsychiatry, deep institutional knowledge, there around that movement disorders. It's VMAT2 biology, which is tied to INGREZZA. If we look at CRENESSITY, deep institutional knowledge and endocrinology in CRF biology. And an area that we don't often talk about, but is near and dear to my heart because it's why I learned about drug development. Endocrinology again, but on the Gnrh 8 receptor that ultimately led to the approval of ORILISSA who AbbVie now commercializes, excuse me. It's a lot of institutional knowledge that we created over the years.
What most companies do, what we do is we follow the science that we learned from that, and we take that into new areas. So continuing on that theme, let's look at the snapshot of a presentation from Neurocrine in 2000. Now the reason for showing you this snapshot is not to show you our rough PowerPoint skills from back then or to the poor choice of colors, which I did try my best to match it to Jude's suit. So see if you can compare those colors when we break this afternoon.
But really is to show you a couple of things. One is you can see at this earlier stages of our pipeline, programs across neurology, psychiatry, endocrinology and immunology. Number two, you see programs of different modalities. Small molecules, peptides and biologics. The third thing requires you to pull out and focus on 2 programs here: Type 1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis. If you go at a 10,000-foot level, a program in endocrinology and a program in neurology, seemingly, disparate therapeutic areas. These are programs that came from Dr. Steinman's lab at Stanford.
But the one thing that requires for their success conversion to -- from a Th1 to a Th2 immune response. So 2 unrelated therapeutic areas requiring something to happen from an immune-based perspective to win. And that view on science following the science is what drives our R&D engine today. Sometimes it takes you into other areas, you exploit, you win, you see how that applies to your institutional knowledge.
So going beyond that, looking at our pipeline in 2005, a couple of things pop up here and expand an endocrinology portfolio, moving a program in Phase II for endometriosis. That program became Orilissa. You see a program in obesity. You see early investments in immunology, in this case, chemokines, an important class of immune-based targets and therapeutics back then and even today. And you also see the expansion of our CRF biology from CRF1 antagonist to CRF2 agonist.
In this case, we're developing Urocortin II, which is the endogenous ligand of the R2 receptor for acute decompensated heart failure. And of course, as I already mentioned, over the entire history of Neurocrine, we've been steady investors within CRF. We took 6 CRF1 antagonist clinical development. One of them became CRENESSITY. I just mentioned the CRF2 investment as an agonist in heart failure. We also had an effort on binding protein, small molecule inhibitors of the binding protein of the CRF receptor. This developed our early institutional knowledge across neurology, psychiatry, endocrinology and immunology with just one mechanism.
The other thing that we've learned over the years that's applicable today when you hear from some of our R&D interest in the near term is the value of being in endocrinology. For the most part, you get biomarkers, you get objective endpoints and the ability to see activity early on in the development with the molecules that you're developing and investing in. So compare and contrast that to our portfolio today, industry-rich, leading neuropsychiatry program, we don't have all those same benefits.
So diversification can also give you benefits on probabilities of technical success as well.
So how do we bridge this past to our present and future? I guess a couple of things before I jump into that. For those of you that already know Neurocrine in our pipeline, that's probably most of you here because you have seen our pipeline, we have talked about it with you over time. There are many similarities in the pipeline today that I've shown you in years past, 2000 and 2005.
But there are a lot of things that are different about our company today than back then. First of all, some of the programs that we had in our pipeline became medicines, valbenazine, our CRF1 investments became CRENESSITY. Our investments in endometriosis became Orilissa. But there are other programs that we had to pause. We had to pause because at moments in time we didn't have the right team. We didn't have the right capabilities or we had to focus on medicines like INGREZZA or CRENESSITY or helping a partner to get Orilissa over the finish line. But that's not the case today.
Today, we have the team, we have the capabilities, and we have the financial profile of a company to follow that science that I mentioned before, all the way through. And that's the difference about Neurocrine today versus Neurocrine in the years past. Now when we think about connecting our past, present and the future, there's 2 things that you should take away from this slide. What we're investing in today and the cadence of investments we're making over time and where that's taking us.
So it makes sense. Our first medicine approved INGREZZA in 2017 in neuropsychiatry, there was a lot of value that came out of that approval. Most of that value in my opinion is for patients in tardive dyskinesia and in Huntington's disease chorea. But the other value comes back to Neurocrine, allows us to reinvest in the company. And of course, with the team that we have, the capabilities that we had at the time, you're going to build out your neuropsychiatry portfolio, and that's what we did. That brings osavampator, the muscarinic, direclidine, our next-generation VMAT2 inhibitors.
The next product that we got over the finish line was CRENESSITY. Obviously, a lot of endocrinology experience. There are a lot of experience in CRF. So where do we go next from an R&D perspective? We stay in endocrinology, and we pursue adjacent therapies within CRF to expand our reach there. And then over time, we have a very strong financial profile as a company, as you know. That gives us the ability to steadily invest in R&D, both now and in the future and across all of our therapeutic areas.
And not many companies can say that. And I've said we have certain competitive advantages in different areas. Our profile as a company, our size is also a competitive advantage. And I believe it's only one that's going to compound with the continued expansion and evolution of our pipeline. So there you go, you get the connection of our path to our present and where we're going in terms of our future and in what order.
So we talked about the commercial portfolio previously kind of outlined at the top there. We got in INGREZZA, CRENESSITY, our medicines partnered with AbbVie and then our clinical pipeline and how that's evolving. How do those 2 areas inform our R&D strategy? Well, it all starts by putting our purpose at the center of everything, which you can see here, to release suffering for people with great needs. Then as we think ahead, our company has come together over time, and we put together defined our strategic R&D pillars.
And they're actually on the slide here. They kind of go in the sequence as I just told you where our investments are going lead the VMAT2 category. What that means is our leaning into our institutional knowledge on VMAT2 biology on neuropsychiatry, take those learnings and apply those to our next-generation VMAT2 inhibitors. We've got 2 molecules in that space, and you'll hear about that from Sanjay.
In terms of delivering on the promise of CRF, we know there are areas in this biology that we missed in years past. We had to pause because we didn't have the right team, the right capabilities. We had to focus on getting CRENESSITY over the finish line in CAH. We don't have those constraints today. So delivering on the promise of CRF means doing all we can for next-generation molecules for CAH and R1 or CRF1 and then moving into adjacent areas in particular, metabolic diseases and conditions, with CRF2 agonist.
So that's a two-pronged strategy there for our CRF R&D strategic pillar. And then lastly, we want to maximize and evolve the pipeline. So there's 2 sides of the coin here. First side, obviously, maximize everything that's in the pipeline today, and there's a lot. There's 12 programs. You're familiar with those. But we got to make sure we do right by those. Number two, the other side of the coin, we want to do the same, maximize and evolve the pipeline for the pipeline of the future. That takes us into our therapeutic areas, our next-generation molecules, et cetera. So that's the goal for that strategic pillar.
But the thing I would say about that, and I'm sure you can agree with me that innovation here at Neurocrine hasn't always been internal. It's been external as well, and we'll continue to lean into that. And by that, I mean business development has served us well over the years. In fact, I believe it's yet another one of those competitive advantages. There have been times in our history in the early 1990s, going back to when the company was created that will use business development to boot strap the company up to the next stage of its evolution, and that was done with a deal with a larger pharmaceutical company for example.
We've also filled pipeline gaps in years past recently to build our pipeline. More recently, we've used business development to bring in new technology to act as an accelerant for research interest. If you look across all those categories, here's a representation of recent partnerships that we struck up, mainly in new technologies to help accelerate our research interest, but obviously, we've identified those companies that we partner with to bring in tangible assets from the outside as well.
Business development will continue to be an active role, play an active role here at the company moving forward. Now I talked about our R&D engine previously as one of the key takeaways for you today. one being fully operational and delivering as promised, right, I said over-delivering. But a couple of things about this. When Jude came on board in 2021, we all sat down around a table, it was in our old campus and we tried to think about ways we could really transform our R&D organization. It was working. It was being successful. It's hard not to say things were in not a great shape because we had multiple medicines that have gotten over the finish line or we can see that view.
But really wanted to really give us some more horsepower and transforming in a way that we can get more productivity over time. So there's 2 areas that we identified that we could do this. One is, historically, we've been a small molecule company, which has really served us well over our future. But you can see -- in our early days, we actually had expertise in other modalities. And I can tell you, when we had to pause those other modalities, we still worked on targets of interest, but in many cases, the small molecules and the targets that we're interested were compatible.
Despite our best efforts, we couldn't get candidates that we can move forward into clinical development. We made a list of all those targets and we made a list of that biology that was difficult, and we saved those for another day, another day where we had the right team, great capabilities to attack that biology in the right way. We brought in that team, some of them are here in the audience today. We brought in the right capabilities to expand into peptides and biologics. That was point one.
The other 2 -- the other point was that we wanted to reconfigure our pipeline. So I had the right mix, not weighted to one side or the other, but the right mix of nonvalidated to validated targets. And by validated, I mean, genetically or clinically. When we put those together almost immediately, we saw a multiplier effect on the probability of technical success, in particular, of our earlier-stage programs that were of interest at the time.
And we saw those start propagating through earlier stages of research, to later stages of preclinical and now moving into clinical development. And with that productivity, we drew a line in the sand, we saw where the company was headed, and that's shown on this slide here. Remember 4, 2, 3, we're expecting a steady state 4 new Phase I starts, 2 new Phase II starts, 3 programs in Phase III. And we're sitting here at least this depending on the productivity that's coming out of our labs.
So this puts us in a pretty rare air in terms of other companies of our size. And I'll tell you now, I'll kind of steal the thunder of both Sanjay and Jude, we hit this Phase I/II Phase III metric for the first time this year after starting this in 2022. So very good productivity thus far. It's the first time we've been this productive ever in our history.
And if we do this year after year, we have very high conviction that we'll be able to deliver one new medicine every 2 years. That's the plan. This is a snapshot of the pipeline today. This is the one that you're familiar with. We're not at steady state yet for the R&D engine that I just presented. So this does represent the programs that we're advancing now. You can see that there is molecules that span small molecules themselves as well as other biologics.
We believe this is an innovative pipeline that we'll deliver a lot of value creation just this decade alone, not to mention everything that's coming behind it. So that's the pipeline. I think that as we turn it over here, just a couple of parting thoughts. Today, you're going to hear a few themes. I mentioned them already, but you'll hear words like execution, why that's important, evolution, repeatable innovation. These are not words that are aspirational. These are things that we're seeing pop up in our pipeline today. We're seeing these being the source of the catalyst that will -- what we'll observe for the remainder of this decade.
So before I hand it over to Sanjay, I would like to say thank you to our research and development teams and really everyone across our organization. It's their commitment to scientific rigor and delivering medicines for patients that is why we're here. Many of the leaders across our therapeutic areas are in this room, as I mentioned just a moment ago. Hopefully, you will get a chance to meet some of them today. They're great people. They have a lot of information about what we're working on here in science that we're trying to deliver. I would encourage that. I think with that, I'll turn it over to Sanjay.
Great. Hello, everyone. Firstly, thank you, Kyle, for the introduction. And thank you to everyone who actually managed to get here. I know it was an arduous journey for many of you, particularly from the East Coast because of inclement weather. I really appreciate your time today. So I joined Neurocrine about 6 months ago. So I'm kind of the newbie here. Really excited to have joined the Neurocrine team and hopefully, it will become evident over the course of today or this morning about why I joined Neurocrine. It wasn't because of the fantastic weather here, but clearly, that was an important factor as well.
In terms of my background, I'm a physician scientist, a neurologist trained in Queen Square London as well as John Hopkins, Baltimore, I was on the academic faculty, Hopkins for a while where I saw patients with a wide variety of neurological diseases as well as RAN and R1 funded immunology basic science lab as well, and then joined the industry about 20 years ago, initially big companies, like BMS, Lilly, where I had the pleasure to encounter Jude, our Chief Scientific Officer; as well as Eiry Roberts, who I am transitioning from.
From there, I went to Roche, where I was Senior Vice President, Head of R&D for a number of therapeutic areas. And then I joined small biotech. I've been doing that for the last few years. I think that's been really helpful in terms of having a relatively hands-on approach with this ever prevalent mindset of time and cost efficiency.
So hopefully, I can bring some of those skill sets to this company. So today, I'm going to be talking about our neuropsychiatry pipeline. Really excited by this. It's broad and specifically, it's driven by validated biology, and we'll be talking about validation a lot this morning because we believe that relates to high probability of success. Admittedly, the psychiatry therapeutic area has been associated with a low probability of success, but we feel we can mitigate this risk by utilizing highly validated targets and mechanisms.
So we have 3 pillars here. The first one is glutamate modulation and the validating mechanism here is ketamine. So the premise here is to have ketamine like efficacy in patients with depression but avoid the baggage of safety and tolerability issues, particularly the [ psychometic ] ones, the memory issues, et cetera. So we're very excited about what we've seen so far with osavampator, which is an AMPA potentiator, got some terrific Phase II data, which I'll present.
We feel it leverages ketamines mechanism, but is a much more convenient oral option, which touchwood has a great safety and tolerability profile. 770 is another molecule in our 2b NAM, which we recently talked about or at least presented in the press release. We did complete a small signal-seeking study. We got some signals of efficacy, and we're currently deciding about next steps going forward.
With respect to the middle pillar, we have a whole slew of muscarinic agonist. The validating mechanism here is Cobenfy or xanomeline, which has efficacy in the schizophrenia indication. We have direclidine, which is a specific M4 orthosteric agonist, is currently in Phase III development in schizophrenia. As Kyle mentioned, we've just initiated a Phase II study in bipolar mania. And we feel by targeting only M1 in the context of some of these other molecules, we have 570 and 569 M1 and avoiding M2, M3 and M5, we actually avoid a lot of the issues associated with GI in tolerability.
We actually have safety data for all of these molecules and we haven't seen much in the way of GI issues. And I'll be talking a bit more about that. In terms of other indications, we're exploring with these follow-on molecules. So really, this is a psychosis platform. In addition to schizophrenia and bipolar mania, we're also very interested in Alzheimer's psychosis, a huge unmet need. Clearly, it's a difficult area in terms of trial execution and we're learning from the field.
Clearly, the others are in front of us, who hopefully will inform the whole field in terms of how to do successful trials in Alzheimer's psychosis. I should mention that 570 has a potential of being a long-acting injectable which may be very helpful in terms of improving compliance in patients with schizophrenia, where potentially an oral medication might be difficult on a long-term basis. And then on the right, we have our VMAT2 inhibition platform. This is validated by our own molecule, INGREZZA, which obviously has done really well. We think that it's a really good medicine for Tardive dyskinesia and Huntington's chorea. We know from a receptor occupancy point of view, that has very high levels of VMAT2 receptor occupancy.
And to be candid, we know a lot about this area in terms of drug development, specifically how to correlate serum exposures with receptor occupancy in the brain because we've done that correlation multiple times with both preclinical species as well as humans and patients. There, we have 2 molecules, 890 and 675. And excitedly, they have the potential also to be long-acting injectables. So again, we feel that we can continue to be very present in the tardive dyskinesia community for the long term. So I'm going to start with osavampator. I'm sure you're familiar with this, to some extent. It's a first-in-class AMPA positive allosteric modulator or otherwise referred to as potentiator.
This slide really relates to the huge unmet need in depression. And again, I'm sure you're very familiar with it, but I make no apologies here in terms of emphasizing the mental health crisis that we are facing, really globally. United States, 1/3 or the 16 million plus people who have depression don't respond at all to available antidepressants. And if one thinks about individuals who have had an inadequate response to antidepressants, this proportion rises to just over half of individuals. So this is a substantial number. And again, I don't need to remind this audience about the alarming suicide rate in our young people. I know there's a debate about the contribution of social media and the COVID pandemic.
But what is not debatable is how alarming and real this statistical -- these statistics are with respect to this tremendous unmet need. So clearly, a lot of unmet need or room to improve, which is back to efficacy. In terms of safety and tolerability, there are side effects with many of the standard of care molecules, including weight gain, sexual dysfunction and sleep disturbances. And lastly, cognitive impairment is increasingly recognized as a big problem in major depression. It's something we're specifically interested at Neurocrine.
Indeed, we have some interesting Phase II data with respect to osavampator. This is with respect to improving available memory and processing speed. And again, this is something we'll look further in larger-scale studies. This slide depicts the mechanism of ketamine. This is on the left of this slide and where osavampator acts in this cascade. So ketamine blocks NMDA receptor on inhibitory GABAergic into neuron. So it inhibits the inhibitory neurons. So essentially, it releases the brakes on glutamate.
And hence, with ketamine, you see a burst of synaptic glutamate release and that results in an increase in AMPA activity, AMPA being another glutamate receptor with an increase in mTOR signaling and release of an important neurotransmitter called brain-derived neurotrophic factor. And that results in synaptogenesis or the formation of new connections between neurons. And this is thought to be really important in depression efficacy. This rewiring helps to break these continual endogenous negative feedback loop circuits that one sees in depressed patients.
Now there are issues with a burst of synaptic glutamate, particularly it might be associated with side effects such as [ psychometic ] issues and memory deficits, which one sees after treatment with ketamine and esketamine. So we're hoping to avoid that with osavampator, which acts directly at AMPA receptors. So it does not increase synaptic glutamate. Indeed, it leverages endogenous physiological levels of glutamate at the AMPA receptors. It's a potentiator, not a true agonist. This is super important because again, to be candid, we've been trying to have a molecule like this in industry. This is not just Neurocrine. I'm talking about industry in general for decades.
And it's been really hard to have a molecule with low intrinsic agonistic activity but be a true potentiator. And I believe we actually have that molecule. So I'll show you the Phase II data, which essentially validates to some extent, the safety tolerability profile that we're seeing. Specifically, we're not seeing any evidence of psychometic and memory deficits. So the Phase II study is called the SAVITRI study. This evaluated the efficacy and safety of adjunctive osavampator. That's our AMPA potentiator versus placebo in individuals who had an adequate response to antidepressants. So that's important to know this population. This is what -- these weren't naive patients. These are patients who already had an adequate response of up to 5 antidepressants.
And this was a double-blind treatment trial, 8 weeks in duration placebo and 2 active arms of osavampator, 1 milligram and 3 milligrams, and we had some safety follow-up to that. And this slide shows the results. So on the left, we see the efficacy as judged by the MADRS scale, that's the vertical scale. The MADRS is an important endpoint, a regulatory endpoint for depression.
So as you can see, versus the orange line, which is placebo, with both our active arms, we're actually separating from placebo, and we're seeing the best separation with our 1 milligram arm, which is the black line at the bottom and these effect sizes are actually quite striking. As you can see on the right, at 1 month, we see a decrease of 4.3 on the MADRS. And that increases to 7.5 at 2 months with a p-value of 0.0016. So highly statistically significant. And this effect size is 0.73, again, is striking in the depression field.
We typically used to effect sizes but efficacious agents in the depression field of some are ranging from 2.5 to 4. So 7.5 is a big effect size. Now what was just as important was how well tolerated this molecule is. And I'm sure Dr. John Krystal, who'll be speaking later will comment on the importance of safety and tolerability for prescribing psychiatrists with respect to keeping patients compliant in the long term with their medications.
In fact, the adverse event profile for osavampator at both doses were comparable to placebo, no evidence of glutamate toxicity with seizures, specifically, I've mentioned the psychometic and memory associated issues, no evidence of that. And the discontinuation rate was similar to placebo. So really happy with this tolerability profile. So based on the Phase II study, we've initiated Phase III studies, specifically 3 Phase III studies, which are 8 weeks long, testing in a double-blind manner, in a placebo-controlled manner at 1 milligram of osavampator. This is one-to-one randomization, which I think is very important in terms of minimizing patient expectation and minimizing a placebo response.
And this slide captures the entire Phase III clinical program. So at the top, you have the 3 Phase III studies, which are all identical. Of note, there are only 200 per study is absolutely deliberate. What we're trying to do here is keep the Phase III studies, roughly similar to the Phase II studies and that minimizes site heterogeneity. We're expecting top line data in the 2027 time frame. We're also doing a randomized withdrawal study or otherwise known as a maintenance effect study here. Everyone has started on active treatment, 1 milligram for about 4 months, and then stable responders are randomized to either continuing the drug or going on placebo.
And lastly, we're getting some long-term safety data as well. So we would be able to file shortly after receipt of the Phase III data. By that time, we'll also have some long-term safety, randomized withdrawal study is not necessary for approval, but clearly, it would be potentially very important for payers and potentially prescribers down the road.
Okay. So we're going to move on to the second pillar, which is our muscarinic agonist portfolio. So I think the first thing here is that we have a whole spectrum of muscarinic agonist. Arguably, we have deep expertise in this area over a number of years. We've been able to dial in essentially what we wish with respect to how much M1 and M4 with some of these molecules. We're avoiding the other muscarinic receptors, specifically no M2, M3 and M5. So very unlike xanomeline, for example. And that means that we essentially avoid GI tolerability issues, and there's no concomitant need to administer a peripheral antagonist, which carries baggage in its own right.
So for example, trospium is a reason for the food effect with the Cobenfy formulation because its AUC is changed by food. So on the left, we have direclidine, which I'll be speaking about a bit more. That's our M4 orthosteric agonist, which is currently in Phase III trials. I'll be showing you that Phase III program as well as the Phase II data. It's a once-daily drug. We're in schizophrenia right now, also started a bipolar mania study. Again, we're very interested in creating a psychosis franchise with this portfolio.
With 570, we have the potential for long-acting injectables. That just started a Phase II study in schizophrenia. So that's moving quite quickly. That's a balanced M1 and M4 agonists. Moving along, we have 569, which is also a dual M1/M4 agonist, but with very interesting PK properties. So there's a half-life of up to 50 hours, has a delayed T-max of 6 hours. And that confers a really nice, and again, this is with our data so far. So clearly, we'll be doing more safety testing over time. But so far, really good tolerability in the elderly population. And that's why we're interested in targeting that drug for Alzheimer's psychosis because we feel we'll have a good enough safety profile to actually prosecute that indication.
So Alzheimer's psychosis, I'm sure many of you are familiar with it, huge unmet need, half of Alzheimer's patients eventually develop psychosis. And there's going to be really troubling for patients and their families. It's dominated by delusions. And often, these dilutions are directed at their most close family members, like my husband is having an affair or my children are stealing my money, et cetera, and there could be agitation and aggression associated with it. And particularly the caregiver might be relatively infirm and frail, there are safety issues as well here. So it's a major cause for institutionalization or nursing home placement of Alzheimer's patients.
So as I mentioned before, we'll be learning a lot about this area from others who are proceeding us, but very keen to use this specific molecule in Alzheimer's psychosis. And on the right, we have an M1 preferring agonist, 567. M1 agonism is thought to confer cognitive properties and Alzheimer's is a good indication for that, particularly in individuals where cholinesterase inhibitors may not be working well. And the reason they may not be working well is because one sees cholinergic denervation in many patients in Alzheimer's disease so they lose the capacity to actually even make acetylcholine. So by having an M1 agonist, we essentially bypass the need for acetylcholine because we're working postsynaptically.
Schizophrenia is an enormous unmet need, a devastating disease, 3.5 million people in the U.S. suffer from schizophrenia. It's devastating because it affects patients early in their lives, often their teens in 20s. It's essentially a lifelong disease, if you have it. And it impacts essentially your identity -- human identity and functioning. And again, very sobering data on homelessness and incarceration, social isolation, et cetera.
And I think it's particularly tough for these patients because the drugs that we use to treat them have such significant safety issues. I think it would be difficult, frankly for anyone in this room to have long-term compliance with these medications just with even the best motivation and will power. So these side effects include weight gain, metabolic issues such as type 2 diabetes, extrapyramidal issues, so that's becoming Parkinsonian with a mask like facies, a flat affect and also potentially irreversible disorder that, obviously, we're all very familiar with in this room, which is tardive dyskinesia. So we can do a lot better for these patients with respect to safer medications, which ultimately will confer hopefully greater compliance.
And then we can do better in terms of efficacy, particularly with respect to negative symptoms and cognitive impairment. I mentioned the prevalent social isolation that is consequent in these individuals, the inability to have functional employment for many, negative symptoms and cognitive impairments are thought to be key drivers of that. So the more we can do in that space, the better. So this is our Phase II data with direclidine. I'm showing the 20-milligram dose. Here, we see an improvement in PANSS, which is the regulatory approval endpoint for schizophrenia. The effect size is pretty large, 0.61. Again, that ranks pretty highly with medications in this field at the top range.
And the absolute mean difference with respect to PANSS is 7.5. Here, the p-value at Week 6 is 0.011. And then with respect to secondary endpoints and the reason I bring this up is when you have a Phase II study, you're trying to figure out if you have a real signal or not, is this a good enough efficacy profile for you to invest in Phase III. And one of the things you look at is what about the secondary endpoints? Do they match the primary endpoint? And with all the secondary endpoints, we just had compelling improvements to that 20-milligram dose, and you can see these p values. I mean I'd like to see all these zeros after the decimal point. So these are highly statistically significant.
And again, these are important approval endpoints as well recognized by regulators, CGI severity and the Marder Factor is both positive and negative. Now with respect to safety and tolerability, again, I keep going on about this, but it really is important, particularly in the psychiatry space. So here, we have the different doses that were tested. At 20 milligrams, the dose utilizing in our Phase III studies, that's in the left column. And on the right, you have placebo. And the only thing that stands out from placebo is somnolence and dizziness, which are relatively mild in these individuals.
Headache for some reason is enriched in placebo. And from a GI perspective, again, as expected or by design, we didn't see any GI issues that were different from placebo. And the rate of discontinuation was also similar. So this is a summary of the Phase II data on the left. We have the efficacy data. I've mentioned the effect size of 0.61. The impacts on both primary and key secondary endpoints. On the right, the safety and tolerability profile and highlighted the GI adverse events, but also other adverse events that are really important for patients with schizophrenia.
So although admittedly, a relatively short study, we didn't see any weight increase versus placebo or any of the extrapyramidal issues or that one sees, particularly with antipsychotics. So on the left of this slide, we have kind of intra-muscarinic competition. Some of the key features. These are highlighted as specificity at muscarinic receptors. So at the top, we have our drug, direclidine, which has high selectivity only for M4, orthosteric agonist of M4 and because of that high selectivity in contrast to the middle row xanomeline, one doesn't need to add trospium or a peripheral muscarinic antagonist to treat all the side effects and you don't have GI issues.
Now in contrast to emracladine, which is the bottom row, which also is specific with respect to targeting M4. We're an orthosteric agonist, so we activate these receptors regardless of the endogenous ligand, but emracladine needs acetylcholine to work. It's a potentiator. So we do feel we have an advantage there. But clearly, I think the proof in the pudding will be over time when those trials get up and running potentially. And that selectivity has advantages from a patient prescriber point of view, that's in the right box on this slide.
So once daily, no titration can be taken with or without food. There's no food effect by itself may sound trivial, but it's actually a massive issue for patients with schizophrenia. No significant GI issues, and I mentioned in contrast emracladine, we do not need a presence of acetylcholine. Okay. So our Phase III studies are simple, short studies, 5 weeks in duration, double-blind, 1:1 randomization versus placebo. We're measuring or testing the 20-milligram dose. And this is a snapshot of our Phase III clinical program. So we're doing 2 acute studies, not too big, again, deliberate 280 patients each at relatively limited sites, about 20 sites each, top line data expected in the '27, '28 time frame.
Also doing a randomized withdrawal. Here, everyone is on the 20-milligram dose for 20 weeks and then the stable responders are randomized to placebo continuing the drug for a further 6 months. And the endpoint there is time to relapse, an event-driven analysis. Again, not needed for approval but may be very helpful data down the road in terms of prescribers and patients because it relates to more longer-term or chronic treatment. And then clearly, we're getting long-term safety data as well.
The last pillar that I'd like to speak before I turn it to Jude is our next-generation VMAT2 inhibitors. So we have a very successful INGREZZA franchise. We think that relates to -- it has good safety and tolerability in the context of high levels of VMAT2 receptor occupancy here with these 2 molecules, 819 and 675, which we already have clinical data and indeed for 890 we'll be shortly starting a Phase II study in tardive dyskinesia. We have the potential for a long-acting injectable administration. That's why we've designed these molecules, specifically for these LAIs. And we think that will unlock new patient populations where oral therapies are challenging on a long-term basis.
So in summation, my sense is that we are advancing an industry-leading neuropsychiatry portfolio. I do feel good that we are tackling really important diseases important for society, important for patients, important for families. And if we can make a dent here in this neuropsychiatry space, I think the world will be a better place. And this is one of the major reasons I actually joined Neurocrine. Now I mentioned psychiatry space has been difficult. With a relatively low probability of success for a number of reasons. I introduced our own portfolio with respect to how we've mitigated that risk by utilizing validated mechanisms and targets.
But what's really important as well with respect to success in psychiatry is knowing how to run successfully psychiatry studies. And we believe we do have that expertise and knowledge largely because we have a terrific team, and I'll be introducing Jaz Singh soon. but Jaz, who is our Head of the psychiatry therapeutic area was the lead developer of esketamine, J&J and also has done a whole bunch of other things in the psychiatry space, including haloperidone and risperidone.
So we're very fortunate that he's assembled really a great team over the years. So 2 main factors here. Firstly, optimizing trial design. As I mentioned, keeping it simple, and there's actually good data showing that the more visits you have, the more frequent visits, more intensive, the monitoring is, the more procedures you have, the higher the placebo response. So there's some intentionality in terms of keeping the study simple. Secondly, one-to-one randomization, the higher the patient expectation that they're going to receive an active treatment again, the higher the placebo response.
Great data, is not theoretical, is all fact-based. So we've kept our studies 1:1 randomization to minimize that expectation by us keeping the studies relatively small with a high degree of selectivity in terms of which sites and investigators to choose is also a really important factor and we are also conducting iterative blinded data analysis to ensure that sites are enrolling the right patients.
So with that, I can see that we have Jaz and Dr. John Krystal waiting. So I think I've already introduced Jaz. He is kind of a drug developer extraordinaire in the psychiatry space. And I think he will introduce Dr. Krystal. So I'll hand it over to you, Jaz.
Thank you, Sanjay. And I want to welcome Dr. Krystal, who is joining us today from Yale University. He's the Chairman of Psychiatry at Yale University with a number of distinguishing things in his career, but I think the ones I really want to highlight because it was a huge part of the work I did. So Dr. Krystal, you started work on ketamine back in the 1990s and quite an interesting story there, which is well published, but that was really a huge part in the development of ketamine as antidepressant as well as fostering the development of Esketamine or Spravato since then. Having seen the journey, I think we're really in a very fortunate time that the development of these new mechanisms really fostered renaissance, if you will, for novel mechanism sort of going past the 50 years of monoaminergics. So let's talk a little bit starting with depression then we follow with other things. As a practicing researcher and clinicians, what do you think are the current unmet needs primarily for depression?
Sure. No, we have dozens of antidepressant medications. We have a number of approved antipsychotic strategies for augmenting the effectiveness of antidepressants. We have TMS. We have ECT and we have esketamine now, and yet the depression remains a tremendous unmet need in our society where people are inadequately treated commonly in clinical practice where patients have low expectations about the possibility of getting better from available treatments.
And so that depression remains one of the most substantial public health burdens in our society and around the world with inadequately treated depression associated with about a 10-year reduction in life expectancy. If we were talking about cancer, everybody in the room would nod their heads, but it's a surprise for many people to think about depression is something that takes such a terrible toll.
Yes. 10 years reduction is putting us back in the 1930s as overall life expectancy has increased, and it's pretty shocking. Now your lab has done a tremendous amount of work in characterizing the mechanism. In fact, Ron Duman, I think one of the earliest folks really laid out the pathway that it wasn't just monoaminergic changes, but the downstream changes.
Having done all that work on elucidating the mechanism of monoaminergics and then ketamine, I think that's going to pave the pathway for some of the work we're doing now with osavampator and AMPA-positive allosteric module. What do you think about this mechanism and how it differentiates from the effects that we see with ketamine?
Sure. Well, Sanjay laid out the work that Husseini Manji first identified AMPA receptor as a key mediator of antidepressant effects of ketamine then Ron Duman worked out the circuitry of that, sadly Ron has since passed away. But our group has been studying -- trying to translate these animal research findings into humans. And we've used a number of novel neuroimaging strategies to do that. And so we've been able to show, for example, that the magnitude of the increase in corticaglutamate produced by ketamine relates to the magnitude of the antidepressant benefits that it produces.
And we've also been able to show that a single dose of ketamine can in depressed patients with synaptic deficits as measured with SV2A-PET can increase synaptic density in those patients and that the magnitude of this restoration is related to the benefit of the antidepressant effects of ketamine as well. So the scenario that Sanjay laid out earlier related to antidepressant effects, which highlights a potential role for AMPA-receptor stimulation in producing these beneficial antidepressant effects associated with ketamine can be targeted potentially more directly with the drug that selectively activates or facilitates the function of AMPA glutamate receptors.
What do you think would be the -- I mean, ketamine and esketamine clearly are effective, but there are significant limitations in terms of adverse events, which require monitoring of use which limits its accessibility. Where do you think having sort of a mechanism like AMPA PAM clinically would mean in terms of safety monitoring, accessibility?
Sure. You're absolutely right, which is that ketamine, esketamine are best administered within the clinic because it has to be administered at the dose range where it can produce associative symptoms, nausea and vomiting and some other side effects. And so while the access to ketamine and esketamine is growing rapidly esketamine now in over 6,000 clinics and a market of, I don't know, almost $1.8-or-something billion a year, that still constitutes only about 1.7% of the patients with treatment-resistant depression in the United States.
And so treatments that are delivered in the clinic will probably not -- there probably won't be sufficient access to address the major problem of inadequately treated depression and a drug that is so well tolerated like osavampator. I've been practicing saying that drug name. Osavampator can -- has the possibility of reaching a large number of patients that really can't come into the clinic or won't come into the clinic to get their treatments.
And I think since you speak of this, we would love to get your thoughts on what you saw from the study in terms of its efficacy as well as the safety data from the Phase II study.
Yes. Very impressive data. Almost -- or over a 7-point drop relative to placebo at 56 days for the 1 milligram dose is very impressive and kind of interesting that at 26 days, both doses had a kind of a similar degree of improvement, 28 days, excuse me. So I think that's pretty impressive improvement, particularly since these are patients who have an inadequate response to treatment and probably would have a very poor response if they were treated with another standard antidepressant medication.
And what do you think about the safety features and especially in concern with the ketamine and esketamine and the accessibility.
Yes, it's really striking that these drugs don't produce the kind of dissociated profile, the abuse liability associated with ketamine or esketamine. And while the abuse liability is managed in the clinic, there's a very little misuse of these drugs prescribed in the clinic, both the safety and tolerability profiles and the abuse liability are drawbacks of a drug like ketamine. And this drug doesn't seem to have any of those effects.
Why don't we switch very quickly then to direclidine or the muscarinics for this thing. So starting with a similar question, where do you think are the largest unmet needs for treatment of schizophrenia?
Well, I think that there are a number of domains that are really critical in schizophrenia. One is around efficacy. Second is around safety and tolerability. And safety and tolerability are really important in relation to adherence to treatment, which is a major challenge for patients with schizophrenia. Around efficacy as you were talking about our work with ketamine, we were convinced by about the mid-1990s that there were domains of schizophrenia psychosis that were not dependent on increased dopamine release. Some of this came from our work with ketamine, some from a study we did where we measure dopamine release and found that dopamine release following amphetamine administration is not found in about 1/3 of patients with schizophrenia.
So that we needed other mechanisms besides dopamine D2 receptor antagonism to reach the kinds of symptoms that people -- many people with schizophrenia had. The second part of this is something that I think everybody in this room already knows, which is that one of the reasons that we all have been seeking drugs that treat schizophrenia using other mechanisms is to avoid the extrapyramidal symptoms, including tardive dyskinesia, but Parkinsonian symptoms that people have talked about.
But the problems of things like bradykinesia and akinesia which look a lot like the negative symptoms of schizophrenia and make people who have schizophrenia feel dulled and slowdown and not quite themselves. These side effects make many people reluctant to continue the medications once they start them and medication discontinue is a big problem in schizophrenia. So one of the things that's really nice is that the direclidine is so well tolerated, we saw the side effect profile presented. And one of the things that these -- drugs that target these mechanisms have that distinguish themselves from D2 is people don't feel dulled. They don't feel drugged. And that's something that I think is very attractive to a lot of people.
So now that we actually have a different mechanism as in Cobenfy approved on the market, how are clinicians actually picking between a D2 antagonist as opposed to Cobenfy.
Well, for whatever reason, I think access to Cobenfy has been really relatively slow to roll out. I mean, we have it in our -- approved in our medical center, and we've treated a modest number of patients with it. Our P&T committee has mostly restricted us to using it for patients who have refractory extrapyramidal symptoms on traditional D2 antagonists. And so I think we're not yet realizing the most important benefit that these medications can have which is to get people started on these medications early in their career -- illness careers and get them to establish good medication adherence practices. And that will augment the pharmacologic impact of the benefits of these medications.
So the P&T committee sort of really limiting access to a certain degree, right?
To some extent, yes, I think as more data rolls out that shows the benefits around adherence early in the course of schizophrenia that the prescribing practice will broaden.
So Cobenfy works primarily both on M1 and M4 for its efficacy in addition to the other muscarinic receptors. Now you've seen the direclidine works primarily on -- as an M4 agonist and then we have others in our portfolio that work on M1 and M4. In terms of efficacy for psychosis, what are your thoughts on M1 versus M4. And then downstream from the potential role for some of the other mechanisms that we have on M1/M4.
Sure. Well, I think Cobenfy, for example, is a drug that -- its potencies for the M1 and M4 receptors are not that different, but in terms of its efficacy at those receptors, it's severalfold more potent or more effective in activating M4 receptors than it is activating M1. So it's hard to know exactly how relevant activity of Cobenfy is to its clinical profile for psychosis. But even for cognition, given the Cobenfy in overall analysis was not significant in their Phase II published paper. It was only positive in a secondary analysis.
The fact that there were hints of efficacy from emracladine in their Phase Ib study that are echoed and amplified in the study that you all conducted where you map out the nice dose-related effects of direclidine, really, I think argues that a lot of the antipsychotic efficacy that we've seen Cobenfy is probably related to M4 receptor activation.
This issue of M1 and M4 is something that's going to need a lot of -- a lot more research to better understand because M1 receptor stimulation from the work of Amy Arnsten and Vijay Raghavan in nonhuman primates, it tends to have an inverted U dose response curve in terms of enhancing prefrontal cortical activity related to working memory. And that suggests that in order to get a cognitive procognitive benefit from these drugs, you have to kind of get the ratio of M1 to M4 right at the dose that you're prescribing the drug. So I think this is a really interesting and potentially promising area, but the M4 story seems a little simpler at this point, a little clearer than the M1/M4.
Certainly. Before I get to the dose response for M4, I think that's very encouraging at least the M4, you spoke about the different muscarinic efficacy. I would love to get your thoughts also on the different muscarinic receptors and its relationship to safety.
Sure. The challenge that Cobenfy has had is that its lack of selectivity for M1/M4 has contributed a lot to tolerability issues. And it was a brilliant thing to combine xanomeline with the trospium to block the -- some of the peripheral side effects, the GI side effects, the nausea, vomiting, GI distress. Unfortunately, that depends on people actually taking the medication as prescribed, which is skipping breakfast to take the medication and waiting 2 hours after dinner to take the evening dose.
And the problem is that many patients with schizophrenia have a hard enough time organizing themselves just to take the 1 pill a day at all, let alone a timing it right for the GI interactions. And so what's happened for some people that have been prescribed Cobenfy is if they don't get it right and they take it on a full stomach, then it makes tolerability a real problem. We've had in our center and other centers have had some patients discontinued due to the GI side effects probably related to not taking it quite in the right way.
Interesting. So going to the -- since you brought up the dose response, when you saw the data for the -- from the Phase II study, what do you think it was a dose response seen with the -- in terms of efficacy from the Phase II study with direclidine?
Well, I think it's really interesting. There are lots of reasons why you might have an inverted U dose response while you might have a more robust signal at lower doses than higher doses. This is a common attribute in terms of cortical function for drugs that enhance cortical function by engaging inhibitory tuning. This is a drug -- M4 receptors are on cholinergic terminals and glutamatergic terminals. It's enhancing the function of the brain by enhancing tuning, inhibitory tuning, but I think there's still a lot to learn about exactly why you have this apparent more robust signal from 20 milligrams relative to the other doses.
One of the things, though, that was impressive to me in that gave me greater confidence about the 20-milligram dose, the robustness of the signal there was the fact that, although it wasn't statistically significant, the magnitude of the clinical improvement in the 30 BID dose was practically the same as what you saw with your 20-milligram dose. So I think I'm confident about the robustness of that 20-milligram signal.
No, that's very helpful. What do you think having worked on emraclidine as well? What do you think from an efficacy or safety perspective, sort of contrasting an orthosteric with an allosteric modulator for M4.
Yes. I think the allosteric modulators do depend on the availability of acetylcholine to stimulate the receptor and they facilitate the activation produced by acetylcholine. We don't really know about in vivo acetylcholine release in schizophrenia. So it's hard to know whether these are really comparable approaches or not. An orthosteric agonist removes the acetylcholine from the equation, as Sanjay highlighted, and so that you can directly stimulate the receptor regardless of background levels of acetylcholine stimulation. We don't really have strong evidence or really compelling evidence of acetylcholine release deficits in schizophrenia, but it is a little -- orthosteric certainly gives you a little more direct activation.
Why don't we stop here and let the audience ask some questions.
Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Krystal. Thank you, Jaz. That was excellent. Let's open it up for questions.
We have an awesome mic runner in Matt Abernethy. It gets to you, go ahead and state your name, your firm and fire away to Dr. Krystal.
2. Question Answer
Brian Abrahams, RBC. Thanks for the really helpful presentation. Two questions on osavampator, one for Dr. Krystal and one for the company. I guess for Krystal, you kind of alluded to this, if you look at the MADRS curves in the study, there's a sharp decline through Day 28 and then the higher dose levels out, whereas the 1 mg continues improving. So I'm curious if there's any mechanistic explanation for this? And is there any risk you might foresee of tachyphylaxis with your longer dosing or higher exposures?
And then for the company, I'm curious if you give us some sense of how far along the Phase III studies are at this point in terms of enrollment, just kind of broadly speaking, and the types of safety interim analyses that are built in. I guess I'm sort of wondering when in the course of the pivotal studies, are you going to be comfortable that an epileptogenic signal is unlikely to ultimately crop up?
Sure. I'll start and then Jaz, maybe you can address the epilepsy issue. So first, I usually don't expect as much tachyphylaxis from positive allosteric modulators as you sometimes do for orthosteric agonist. So I doubt that, that's accounting for this I would also say that we have to be really careful about overinterpreting 1 Phase II study in terms of Day 26, they look identical and they just have some divergence for the second part of that study. So I'm not entirely confident that 3 milligrams is really less effective than 1 milligram. But if it is, there are reasons that you can get inverted U dose response curves. I mentioned a couple of them already, maybe you recruit more inhibition at 3 milligrams or something. Hard to know, and I wouldn't really want to mislead you so.
Sanjay, do you want to cover where we're at from an enrollment in the...
Yes, I'm sure you can jump in as well. So the Phase III programs are enrolling well. Indeed, we have to be careful about enrolling too quickly to be completely candid because it's all about quality, not so much speed, but we're certainly keeping to the time line of top-level readouts in the 2027 time frame for all our osavampator Phase III study. So that's great.
With respect to safety, obviously, it's iterative in terms of blinded fashion throughout the entire study. Our expectation for seizure is really low because of the mechanism that we described. But clearly, that's something that we'll be looking for throughout the extent of these studies.
Yes. I think just to add to it. So the -- we have a committee starting off, right, there's a more than 15-fold margin of safety from where you see with the dose we're testing with osavampator and where you might see it. And so I don't really want to comment about safety from an ongoing study, but you would see those events as you progress, right, even as I said, is going along. So you don't have to wait for certain time periods before you get an interim analysis. You see that as the study is ongoing sort of continuously.
Go ahead, Sean.
Sean Laaman from Morgan Stanley. I think I got it on the high level, just the M4 versus the M1/M4 debate. It appears that if I got it right, that adding M1, it's not really clear if that adds any M1 efficacy, but what it might do is just introduce the tolerability issues in the periphery, if I got that right. So why bother with M1?
Yes. So I think the main reason to bother with M1 is the possibility of engaging these pro cognitive cortical mechanisms if you get the dose right. So pro cognitive effects of M1 are well described in animals and could translate not only to reductions in cognitive impairments, but potentially also to improvements in negative symptoms. And so I think that there's a lot of interest in trying to optimize that combination. It's just that it's hard to know given the clinical profile of Cobenfy whether they've achieved that, and we'll see whether you're -- whether the Neurocrine drugs can achieve that synergy.
Go ahead, Tazeen.
Okay. Thanks for hosting this. One for the company and then maybe one for Dr. Krystal. So for the withdrawal study that you mentioned, can you just clarify, you do need it or you don't need it for ultimate approval. And then for Dr. Krystal, what kind of clinical advantage with data from a withdrawal study give to you to be able to prescribe the medication. And then maybe one top-level question. I think Marty McCary recently talked about the need for potentially just 1 study across, I guess, everything unless otherwise specified. You guys are well into enrolling multiple Phase III studies, but how does that potentially, if at all, change your game plan for how to seek approval.
Do you want me to take it?
Yes, why don't you start and then I'll...
Yes. I think Dr. Keswani pointed out, the maintenance effect study is not a requirement for approval. So do you want to comment on the potential benefits of it?
Sure. I think the discontinuation studies give you a sense of the durability of clinical efficacy once the medication is stopped, and it tends to give a robust signal that was very -- a very robust signal for esketamine, the discontinuation study and that was helpful for giving added confidence to clinicians that the clinical benefits are real.
Yes. I just wanted to also address a prior question just to make sure there was clarification about M1 and adverse event. So we're not expecting any GI tolerability issues at all with M1. Indeed, the GI intolerability that has been seen with other muscarinic agonists like related to the other muscarinic receptors, i.e., non-M1 and non-M4, most likely M3, but frankly, we're not sure, but not M1 and M4.
So I don't want to give the impression that because we're targeting M1 that causes an issue in terms of tolerability.
And then just to the question about randomized withdrawal. So yes, this is really a nice to have, not essential for approval, actually for both our Phase III programs. We think will provide meaningful, durable data because, obviously, a question that future payers may ask is some of the long-term efficacy data, and this provides that.
Comment on multiple Phase IIIs and what we need to file in terms of...
Yes. So in the -- and again, Jaz, I'm sure who's been in this field for a long time, can address that as well. But -- so we need 2 positive Phase IIIs. It's not unusual in the depression field to actually run 3 but we need to get the drug approved.
I think just to add, I think you commented on a specific publication recently on 2024 approvals based on a single drug approval. That hasn't quite happened in psychiatry. But certainly, once we get our study, we will certainly put our foot forward and have that discussion with FDA.
So last question for this session. It's been really engaging. We're going to have some more Q&A after Jude. So everybody will get a chance to ask some questions. But Evan, do you want to wrap this up?
Evan Seigerman from BMO Capital Markets. So Dr. Krystal, you had mentioned that Cobenfy use is limited in your practice. I'm wondering how much of this is driven by the lack of adjunctive data or an indication? And more broadly, how important is adjunctive data for the potential osavampator?
Yes, that's a great question. I think we were disappointed that the adjunctive data were not positive for Cobenfy and developing adjunctive treatments is more challenging than monotherapies because the effect size is smaller, giving you a risk of more negative results or failed trials, if you will. And I think for me, it's still an open question about the value of adjunctive data of M1/M4 and lots of unanswered questions in this space. But there's no doubt that a robustly positive adjunctive study would have helped us to make easier case within our institutions for implementing it adjunctively.
And the main issue there is around how do you transition patients from one treatment to another. And the most common way that medications are implemented is adjunctively. And then if there -- if you see good efficacy, you taper out the primary drug. So I think that practice will still continue in that way, but we hope to see more encouraging data from other studies.
Great. I think we're out of time here. Thank you very much, Dr. Krystal. Thank you for coming. I think you're sticking around for Taco. So if you have -- if the audience have some questions for Jaz or for Dr. Krystal, they'll be out in the courtyard enjoying some fine food later. Okay. We're close on time a little bit over. Let's take a 5-minute break, very tight 5 minutes, and then we'll start it up here with Jude. You have 5 minutes.
[Break]
If we can start gathering and sitting down again, please, about 2 minutes before the next part of the agenda today with Jude. While Jude is making his way to the stage, many of you may know, he's been in industry for over 25 years, including a very illustrious stint at Eli Lilly, where his last role there was Vice President of Biotechnology development research and then we were able to get him to join Neurocrine. Always a good day when I get to hang out with Jude because I just get smarter standing next to him. So Jude, why don't you come on stage? Talk about the R&D transformation progress that we've had since 2 years ago. And then once you're done with your talk, we'll open it up for Q&A with Jude and Kyle.
All right. Todd, thank you for the kind introduction. Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. And thanks for joining us for today's exciting R&D Day. It's a great pleasure and honor to represent the work of our entire R&D team in providing you a high level of date on our R&D transformation. 3 years ago, at our R&D Day, we laid out what was a bold agenda, a vision and a strategy that we had dubbed 20 in 5, a strategy that is aimed at transforming Neurocrine to a high science, high productivity, R&D organization, but with emphasis on scale, sustainability and competitiveness.
In that conversation 3 years ago, we made a commitment, 4 key commitments, pretty high level. Our first is to deliver a credible growth strategy. The second is to build the team to deliver on the strategy and the third is to build the platforms, the modalities for sustainable delivery. And the last and perhaps most important is really to deliver a vibrant early phase portfolio that will give us the confidence that we can reliably and reproducibly drive molecules to the clinic through the clinic all the way to commercialization.
I would say that the last 3 years has been one of the most productive, most exciting of my career. And if I had to summarize it, the high-level summary or headlines would be that we've made remarkable progress on most of the teams that we covered in our last R&D Day. For one, our 20 in 5 strategy is live and well. We have now built that engine, the engine referring to the people, the platforms and the modalities. And that engine is beginning to deliver on the promise of the pipeline that is evident in well over 35 truly exciting programs in our early phase portfolio.
And these efforts span our current therapeutic areas to emerging therapeutic areas. While sticking to a metal in psychiatry, in neurology, you would hear we're building emerging franchise in endocrinology as well as immunology. And today, if you ask me, I would argue that we're now at a dawn of a new era in our transformation. The question isn't whether we can do this, but we know we can. It's now a question of sustainability, i.e., continuing to maintain the momentum of advancing high-quality, high-value molecules to the clinic all the way to POC and beyond.
And so today, I will take you through how far we've come, but with particular emphasis on where we are going. First, allow me to introduce the team that is powering this transformation. At the core of our progress is the leadership team that you see on this slide. These are platform leaders, therapeutic area leaders, distinguished scholars, external innovation leader as well as scientific members of our Scientific Advisory Board. Many of these individuals are here today. I don't have time to go a person for person through this slide, but I'll drive home a couple of points.
First is from day 1, our goal was to build an elite R&D organization. The person for person will stand tall against any company in our industry today. And we have now assembled the team, a diverse, strong diverse leadership team with expertise from academia to small biotech, all the way to large pharma, expertise across the therapeutic areas expertise across the platforms that we will discuss. These are proven leaders okay? Leaders, drug hunters, innovators with truly proven accomplishments. I now have had the opportunity to work with these men and women, and I can unequivocally tell you that Neurocrine R&D is indeed in great hands.
And so with the team on board, we then scrutinized where we've been to better define and define where we need it to go. And to frame our transformation, this is an honest or candid summary of our R&D engine pre-2022. The decade pre-2022 candidly, was a decade of limited internal innovation.
Our external innovation engine has always been strong, remains strong and remain a core competitive advantage at Neurocrine. But given the realities of the priorities at the time for the company, we didn't invest sufficiently to modernize our internal R&D engine. And at the time, we were a single modality small molecule company that focused predominantly on novel, risky and validated targets with an overweight of neuropsychiatry with emerging opportunities in neurology with quasi-therapeutic area structures and with a focus on symptomatic treatment. As we have heard from many of you in this room repeatedly, we needed to modernize our base to lower risk, higher value, higher probability areas as it relates to modalities as it relates to also therapeutic space.
And to be the company that we envisioned with an eye on leadership in the CNS space, we knew ourselves that we needed to build a more capable, more scalable, a higher productivity, R&D organization that can reliably fill the pipeline with high-quality, high-value assets from research all the way to the clinic to POC and beyond. And this realization became the foundation of our transformation. And so in 2022, we rolled out a bold agenda, an agenda we described as 20 in 5, an agenda or strategy that is aimed at building breadth, depth and with a focus on reinvigorating our internal engine productivity and to support our vision of global leadership in the CNS space.
Specifically, we set out to build a robust R&D innovation engine that can reliably and reproducibly deliver 20 new development candidates over 5 years. This is just an average of 4 to 6 development candidates on the average a year through both internal and external innovation across a range of modalities across our therapeutic areas, that at steady state, we hope and we'll pay out one launch product every other year.
We anchored the strategy to a couple of fundamental tenets that are summarized on the right. The first is diversifying our therapeutic areas. Second is multimodality, the third is focusing on proven biology and the last and important is to amplify our journey through external innovation. All of this towards one specific goal of building and delivering a diversified and sustainable portfolio across our therapeutic areas.
Well, to give you an idea of what our innovation engine, R&D engine has evolved to, I'm going to double-click rather quickly at each of the tenants of the strategy that is summarized on the right, starting with the therapeutic areas. So to compete to lead in the neuroscience space. It was important to redefine, refine where we needed to play, how we needed to play, the core competencies that are needed to participate, compete and lead in any space of our chosen.
And so first and foremost, we focused on rebalancing our efforts, rebalancing our efforts to areas of greater needs, areas of greater probability of success, specifically, if you recall, pre-2022, a huge footprint in psychiatry, while we remain competitive and committed to psychiatry. We downsized our footprint, at least on the early phase to a 25% of the portfolio, investment in neurology, endocrinology, and we build an emerging new franchise in immunology that is applicable to every one of the therapeutic areas.
This mix balances our core strengths with new growth vectors. And with psychiatry and neurology as our legacy pillars, endocrinology and immunology as new growth innovative spaces, as you heard from Kyle, echoing the point, these are endocrinology and immunology have proven biology, proven endpoints, good molecular markers in the clinic, good clinical endpoint with higher probability of success. Areas, we believe we can quickly really design competitive, differentiated molecules and win them.
One thing these therapeutic areas have in common is confidence, confidence in the scientific validation, confidence in the clinical opportunity and the commercial opportunity. a disciplined approach that is necessary to create a sustainable portfolio, while balancing risk. So that's the therapeutic areas. Next is the modalities. So to deliver, to the therapeutic area strategies and their priorities, we moved very quickly to modernize our capabilities.
And today, multimodality has become a signature component of our new R&D engine, while maintaining a competitive position in small molecule therapeutics. Today, our pipeline, our early phase pipeline boost about 60% from new modalities in peptides, antibodies, gene therapy and conjugates. And to make this work, of course, we built, we bought, we borrowed, we partnered to get access to their capabilities. And by integrating internal molecule design and engineering with access to external innovation allowed us to accelerate faster and accelerate smarter.
And when you look at this, this range of options, okay, or this breadth of therapeutic options offer us a couple of things: flexibility, optionality to match multimodality with biology and to focus on the best of the best opportunities and quickly build candidates and advance clinical candidates forward. And so with the therapeutic areas in place, the modalities in place, I think it's fair to ask the question, where are we pointing this engine?
And what is our innovation philosophy. A point I want to drive home is that our productivity begins with a disciplined approach to portfolio design, which is summarized in this slide. So to get to the future that we'll see, and to do it rapidly, we took a very pragmatic approach, a pragmatic approach that focused on proven biology. These are high confidence, high opportunity genetically and clinically validated targets that we believe that we can quickly compete and win in. So we skewed our portfolio 75% more to this high validated, high confidence high validated targets.
A key component of the strategy, of course, is molecule design differentiation through molecule design and engineering. And to make this work, we went out and hired some of the best molecule designers and engineers that we can hire. And today, I can unequivocally tell you that a molecule design and engineering is not just a competitive advantage, but we can stand competitive against just by any company, particularly any company of our size.
And the last pillar of the strategy is around external innovation. A reminder that external innovation has been a true accelerant, major accelerant to our productivity. And our external innovation group, formally as you know, led by Kyle and now led by my buddy here, high horsepower, [indiscernible], okay? We have seamlessly integrated external innovation with internal innovation as a boundary less walls of ideas, platforms, sometimes molecules as the case may be.
And today, our pipeline, okay? Especially early phase pipeline has a contribution for external innovation for about 50% of the programs. And again, this is an intentional strategy, a model that allows us to punch above our weight. And as we go forward, let me point out, the deals such as deals with companies like Biocytogen, NeoMab for antibody discovery, peptide programs with Centia, gene therapy with Voyager, small molecule with [indiscernible] just to name a few, allow those access to differentiated starting points, but a very low entry cost, but with strong strategic value.
And as we go forward, this build, buy, borrow, partner approach will continue to allow us to expand the reach, crush time lines as well as also deliver on really great return on investment. And so 3 years into it, it's also fair to ask the question. What has this transformation delivered? I'll quickly add that the strategy and investment is truly delivering on the promise of the pipeline. Evident in the momentum we see with new development candidates and the rapid advance into the clinic that we're seeing.
Three years in a row, we have met and exceeded our planned deliverables, you remember the 4 to 6 candidates a year and today accumulatively have delivered about 24 new development candidates through both internal and external innovation. These candidates are driving the flow of molecules to the clinic evident and the increase in number of FIHs. This is also occurring at accelerated time line, a measure of improving R&D efficiency.
This is also associated with increased productivity of both our small molecule engine. At a time, our Biologics innovation engine has fully come online with the rapid delivery of 7 peptide, 3 gene therapy, 5 antibody, new development candidates. But importantly, is that behind the 24 candidates is that we have a prioritized predevelopment candidate, portfolio, high-value predevelopment candidate portfolio that is prioritized through end that gave us confidence that we can do this year-over-year. I can see 2 years, I can see 3 years out, okay? This is best highlighted by this slide.
In a short period of time, we have transformed and strengthened our early phase pipeline. And today, we have the deepest, the broadest, strongest pipeline in our history. A pipeline that spans across our 4 therapeutic areas, as you can see in the columns, a pipeline that now reflects our multi-modalities, every single of the modalities that I mentioned earlier. While the numbers are impressive, what I'm particularly proud of and what my team is most proud of, is the quality inherent in these candidates.
Going from right to left, 9 assets in Phase 1 today across the therapeutic areas, 15 programs, these are 15 additional development candidates that are going through IND-enabling studies. 4, 5 of these have already completed IND-enabling studies with a plan to deliver maybe 4, maybe up to 7 in the clinic next year. And to the left behind that is a predevelopment candidate portfolio that is prioritized ready to reload the development candidate portfolio. What this gives us, ladies and gentlemen, is reliable and reproducible flow to the clinic year-over-year.
If you ask me, this is a portfolio that is built for durability, a portfolio that is built for long-term value with the flexibility, with the optionality for the patients that are waiting. And this brings me to this very important slide that was framed earlier nicely by Kyle, the importance of the slide because the intent and the goal of all of this is to get to this vision of one launch product every other year.
While we can debate the exact number, the exact flow, okay, 4, 2, 3, we can debate the exact flow. But one thing is clear today and what I can equivocally tell you is that we've built the engine, it has the scale, it has the diversity. It has the disciplined prioritization that position us well and position us well towards the future goal of one product launch every other year.
At a high level, I hope this gives you an idea of the progress we've made in the last 3 years. Again, our 20 in 5 innovation engine is live and well. We have built that engine, the talent, the people, the platforms, the modalities, and is delivering on the promise of the pipeline across our therapeutic areas.
While sticking to our mettle in psychiatry and neurology, we're building rapidly an emerging franchise in newer growth areas, such as immunology and endocrinology. In the interest of time, but candidly for confidentiality reasons, I can only double-click on 1 therapeutic area today and that will be endocrinology. I promise in the coming year at an appropriate time when Darin signs off on my ability to do that, we will discuss immunology as well as some of the other platforms.
And so on endocrinology, to understand our endocrine strategy and our progress, it was nicely framed by Kyle back to the future. We leaned in on our proud a path to create what we believe will be a truly, truly exciting future. As Kyle summarized earlier and as you saw in the hallway coming in, Neurocrine was founded on the science of CRF. One of our scientific founders, late Wylie Vale helped clone CRF, the ligand in -- the Purified CRF1 in the early '90s and cloned the receptor CRF1 and CRF2 and later some of the other ligands such as the urocortins.
And since then, we have invested in multiple cycles of scientific insight, clinical learning and this includes, if you look to the left bottom to the left, this includes, as you heard from Kyle, advancing several CRF1 antagonists to the clinic, starting in psychiatry. And to the right at the bottom to congenital adrenal hyperplasia. And as Kyle also pointed out in the middle top in 2012, despite a successful proof-of-concept with our first CRF2 agonist program, this is urocortin 2 native ligand to CRF2 despite a successful POC in acute heart failure, we made a strategic decision to pause that program.
And that strategic decision was a decision to prioritize INGREZZA. And looking at it today with a beautiful and nice decision that funded INGREZZA, okay? Bottom line, a 30-year head start that has culminated with CRENESSITY as the first CRF1 antagonist for congenital adrenal hyperplasia. I would say, given our leadership in this space, we know what we missed. We think we know what the rest of the industry missed.
And we believe that we know how to do better with this pathway. And with this, consistent with that, in 2022, during our strategic refresh, we made CRF, the strategic pillar for our endocrine franchise. We really focused our efforts on high-value endocrine diseases that has CRF as underlying pathology. And since then, I would say that the momentum in our endocrine pipeline has truly been exceptional. Specifically, we are focusing on an integrated 2 receptor strategy that is summarized on the slide.
To the left is CRF1 on the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal dysfunction. And to the right is CRF2 a metabolic disease, specifically obesity with muscle preservation. So let's take it one at a time. To the left, on CRF1, given our success with CRENESSITY, we believe we know that we have tremendous opportunities to, frankly, strengthened our leadership, extended our leadership by building a moat around CRF1 by making sure that we provide the patients, the congenital adrenal hyperplasia patients and adjacencies all the tools they need to better manage their disease.
And we will do this by hitting this pathway a little bit different, a little bit harder, a little bit better with new small molecules, longer active peptides, antibodies as well as bispecific molecules, up, down and in the middle of the pathway. And consistent with this, early in the year, we advanced our follow-on molecule to CRENESSITY. NBIP-1435. This is a q. weekly, perhaps q2 weekly long-acting peptide that had CRF1 a little bit harder with longer exposure that is currently in Phase I.
And we are also poised to advance additional innovation, additional candidates as antibodies as bispecifics along this pathway, combining multiple components of the pathway for both congenital adrenal hyperplasia as well as the adjacencies. So speaking about adjacencies to the right is our focus with CRF2 in metabolic disease. And for avoidance of doubt, Neurocrine has been here before with CRF2 agonist, as I pointed out, with urocortin 2 in acute heart failure heat. I also have been here before in a previous life, and consistent with this, okay, we will be advancing a novel potent, q. weekly CRF 2 agonist into the clinic in the first half of next year.
And with CRF2, and I hope to show you data that this offer a differentiated approach with relevance to cardiorenal metabolic disease with a specific focus on obesity and muscle preservation. But with CRF2 as a strategic anchor and entry point into obesity, we didn't stop there. We built a broader, what we believe is a complementary portfolio around current validated mechanisms. I show you validated mechanisms and additional mechanisms that we believe could be combinable with CRF2 and so.
This would include a q. weekly triple-G agonists, q monthly tripe-G agonists. And I'll get to some of the data in a minute. So why CRF2 and why CRF2 in obesity? We can all agree today that obesity is a big deal. Obesity therapeutics are changing and reshaping the world. While remarkable progress has been made in second and third generation obesity programs, the likes of the incretins, okay? We can agree that tremendous opportunities, of course, remain to shape and reshape this emerging space.
And to this, okay, take a look at current market leaders. The current market leaders as well as much of big pharma is scrambling to reposition and position in the next round of innovation in this space, and that underscores our interest, next round of innovation. And while GLP-1s, the epicenter of obesity today is highly competitive, we can also agree that there is tremendous opportunity for new mechanisms, new combinations delivered a bit differently. And so to this, importantly, we believe that CRF2 offer an important, an attractive and differentiated entry into the obesity space.
And given our leadership in this space, we see this as a vantage point and the entry for us to get into the obesity, the adjacencies of obesity with muscle preservation. And so I'll tell you a little bit about CRF2. So to the cartoon on the left this system -- the CRF system is a 4-ligand, 2-receptor system. We previously talked about CRF1. Unlike CRF1 that regulates the hypothalamic stress response in Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal axis, CRF2 regulates stress recovery and homeostasis.
Loss of function of CRF2 results in increase in anxiety, altered metabolic homeostasis, including stress-induced hyperphagia. And to the right is the expression of CRF2. It's expressed in good levels in the brain, in the periphery in the heart, skeletal muscle, kidney, adipose tissue and somewhat in the gut. And when you agonize the system, at least in animal models, all the way to nonhuman primate, you see a robust reduction in food intake, a robust reduction in body weight.
But in addition, you build muscle. You enhance cardiac function and you improve renal function. This is particularly important given that current therapies in the obesity space, the likes of the incretins while they deliver really great weight loss, 20% to 40% of today seem to come from lean mass. Considering the importance of muscle in support, in mobility and in metabolic health muscle preservation in the context of weight loss represents a future state in obesity.
And consistent with that, we moved very quickly to build a q weekly potent, novel, very well-behaved, CRF2 agonist, which I will, for simple call it 2118, okay, with a goal for obesity with muscle preservation as monotherapy, but consideration as potential add-on, follow-on combination therapy, maintenance therapy as the case allows. And I'll show you some of the data on 2118 next.
In our gold standard diet-induced obesity balance model, as you can see, doses of 2118 in the shades of blue color, as you can see a dose-dependent decrease in food intake to the left, a dose-dependent decrease in body weight in the middle and improvement in glucose tolerance to the right.
What is perhaps most important is that this is competitive or more than competitive against an industry-leading dual GLP, GIP benchmark that is shown in the orange. Of course, why we're excited about this data. We're even more excited about the body composition data. And again, going from left to right, like the industry-leading dual GLP, GIP benchmark 2118 drives a dose-dependent decrease in fat mass. But unlike the industry-leading dual GLP/GIP benchmark that decreases lean mass robustly in the middle, 2118 is either sparing or actually increases lean mass.
This is best illustrated to the right in the QNMR data showing the contribution of fat in red, and lean mass in blue to the overall value weight loss. The first bar there is the industry benchmark dual GLP/GIP. In our experiments, we see anywhere from 20% to 30% weight loss driven from lean mass. By comparison, so in contrast, 2118, as you can see, dose-dependently decreases weight, but driving mostly from fat with little to no decrement in lean mass.
In fact, as you can see at the lower doses, the first 3 bars, the first 3 bars, you can see an increase, actually, an increase in lean mass. This is very exciting. Needless to say, we've completed IND-enabling studies with this program. And the program is on track to be -- to go into Phase I in the first half of next year. Well, in case, if it's not obvious, we're super excited. We're super excited about the differentiated option, the 2118 or CRF agonism can offer robust weight loss but without sacrificing lean mass and to win on CRF2, we have taken a disciplined, a very disciplined approach, a disciplined approach that has allowed us to think about future combinations with currently validated mechanisms.
And frankly, future mechanisms that I wouldn't talk about today. A dual strategy, at least for the purposes of today's discussion, the focus on ability to combine our average CRF2 agonist with our own proprietary triple-G incretin either as coformulation or co-injection to the left, building a univalent, all in one molecule that combines the pharmacology of CRF2 with that of the incretin, okay?
This dual approach, of course, gives us the opportunity for multiple TPPs. To me, again, when you look to the left, this variable ratio to the right, this fixed ratio, this multiple TPPs allows you to meet the varied needs in the growing obesity market today. Of course, each of these approaches has its strength and of course, its challenges. And suffice to say we've done both, and I'll show you some of the data. We began first and foremost, we're building our own proprietary GGG incretin, GLP/GIP glucagon agonist, a q weekly molecule. And as you can see here, combination of this triple agonist with the CRF2 2118, if you look at the pharmacology, pretty compelling data in terms of weight loss.
In the red, is 2118 -- a dose of 2118. In the yellow is a dose of our proprietary GGG, combinations of these 2 at different ratios in the light blue, brown and in green different ratios. As you can see, you see a rapid, deep, durable weight loss. And to the right, again, going back to the body composition data, again, much of the body composition when compared to GGG, which is the first bar there, 23%. We typically see 23% to 25% or more coming from lean mass. As you can see, the combination drives weight loss through fat with little-to-no effect on lean mass. So going back to the dual strategy. This is the combination of co-formulation approach. We have also built a univalent, all in 1 molecule that combines the pharmacology of CRF2 with a GLP and a GIP.
So this triple agonist is what you're looking at. This triple agonist, as you can see, also drives a dose, rapid a dose-dependent decrease in body weight. And to the right, is the exciting body composition data, as you can see, the last 3 bars there when compared to triple-G, where you see losses from lean mass, much -- all of the weight loss is coming from fat. In fact, at the lower doses, if you can see, you see an increase in lean mass.
Taken together with the combination studies that I've shown you, we believe that this is the kind of profile that is needed in the post-GLP world, profound weight loss without sacrificing lean mass. And again, we are moving as aggressively as we can to advance these molecules and combinations of thereof to the clinic. But we're not done. We have also built what we believe could be a leading q monthly, maybe q3 monthly, best GGG incretin with emphasis on superior weight loss and convenient delivery. But given the flat exposure profile of this molecule, we believe will also improve tolerability. And this molecule TGFC combines, of course, the triple agonism from GLP, GIP, glucagon to drive maximal efficacy.
But with the intentional design that turns down the glucagon activity, that turns the Fc region for half-life extension. And as you can see, pretty compelling biology to the left in the diet-induced obesity maps, a rapid dose-dependent durable weight loss. In fact, at the highest dose, which is by no means even a high dose, okay? You're pushing the limits of what you can actually do in these diet-induced obesity. Animals are losing 50% of their body weight in 2 weeks.
As engineered, the PK profile of TGFc is indeed another differentiator, a single subcu injection of TGFc, as you can see, in nonhuman primate, you can see TGFc levels are high, they're stable and flat all the way. And if you look at the table, where half life in nonhuman primates of 21 days. This level of durability is very difficult to achieve using other current peptide platforms. And for comparisons, we just included in the table, 2 examples of molecules that are currently in the clinic that have q monthly potential.
To summarize, I hope this gives you an idea of the progress we're making at least in the obesity space. In a short period of time, we've built quite a portfolio, a portfolio that boasts multiple opportunities, okay? Central to our strategy, of course, is this strategic entry through CRF2, a differentiated mechanism that focuses on better quality weight loss.
But we didn't stop there, we've built a broader portfolio, a broader differentiated portfolio that we believe is complementary, combinable with current validated mechanisms as well as future mechanisms to come. And this gives us the opportunity to address different needs while minimizing the risk of relying on a single product approach. We believe that the strategy in this portfolio, which I will argue is a tip of the iceberg, okay, really, really positions us well to be competitive in the future of obesity space.
And speaking about the future of obesity space, I want to end by impressing view. We are not trying to beat the GLPs. We're designing and advancing the next generation after them. I think it's important that I emphasize that some of us actually contributed to the discovery and development of some of the much celebrated incretins today. And so I want to end with a high-level introduction of some of the members of our teams and behind every member I introduced, remember, there is a layer of commensurate expertise and experience. And I will start with Krister Bokvist. Krister Is a Senior Director in the metabolic disease space. 25 years' experience in the industry, ex Sanofi, ex Lilly Christa is 1 of 4 inventors of Mounjaro and Zepbound.
Next is Adam Mezo. Adam is the VP of Research in Peptides and Bioconjugates, again, 25 years of experience in biotech and large pharma ex Biogen Idec, ex Lilly, ex Ferring. While at Lilly, Adam led the peptide team that discovered Mounjaro, Zepbound, retatrutide and mazdutide. Adam is the chemist and the inventor of mazdutide, which is approved in China, obesity and diabetes and is currently undergoing clinical development in the U.S.
Fiona Scott. Fiona Is our VP for Neuroendocrine Therapeutic area on the research side, again, 18 years of experience in biotech and pharma, ex Receptos, ex Celgene, remarkable background in metabolic disease and immunology. And then Jean Chan, Jean is our VP of the therapeutic area on the clinical side, endocrine therapeutic area on the clinical side. An endocrinologist with 25 years of clinical research experience, including time at Amylin. Jean in case you're wondering, Jean lead -- was a clinical lead for CRENESSITY program, leading it all the way to approval.
And next is Chad Paavola. Chad is Executive Director, Chad leads our biologics lead optimization team. Again, 24 years of experience in biotech, ex NASA scientist, ex Lilly scientist, inventor of Lyumjev. Lyumjev is ultrarapid insulin. And next is Andrew Ratz. And Andy is a Senior Vice President of CMC, Delivery and Devices at Neurocrine. 29 years of experience in CMC, delivery and drug combination. In his last role prior to leaving Lilly, he was Senior Vice President of Delivery and Device and he led the team that delivered -- on the delivery and device of many of the biologics, including the most celebrated incretins.
And last but not the least, is Tom Bumol, Tom is a member of our Scientific Advisory Board. Tom is also a former Senior Vice President of Research at Lilly. Tom, if you ask me, is the architect of modern day biologics and modern-day immunology at Lilly. I reported to Tom for 12 years as the Vice President of Biologics Research on my last 12 years at Lilly. And together, we led a biologics research organization that delivered well over 65 clinical candidates, 10 of which are approved drugs today and counting. I share all of this for one reason and one reason only, and that is to say we know what we are up against. Thank you for listening.
Thank you, Jude. That was awesome as always. Let's go into questions for about the next 20 minutes or so, and then Kyle will provide some closing remarks to keep us on time. So where is my mic runner?
Jude, thanks for everything. Thanks for that suit, well that matches the slides and a lot of substrate that we now have in the company. So appreciate that. First question comes from Jay.
Guys, thanks for hosting us here today and providing this impressive update. And congrats on nominating 2118 as your lead candidate for the treatment of obesity. It's a really nice surprise. And of course, it raises a lot of exciting questions. So I'll try to limit myself to a few. But with regards to target validation, is there any human genetic data that may support the role of CRF2 as a target for obesity? And also, if you could please comment on the need for brain penetration versus peripheral activity for your CRF2 agonist. And then also, just curious if you plan to develop 2118 in combinations that may potentially allow a lower dose of GLP-1? Or do you plan to develop 2118 more as a stand-alone program for induction or maintenance of weight loss?
Really quickly, we'll answer the first questions about that so we can get around is like an earnings call, Jay. Second one, too. Okay, first and second, all right.
So what is the first 1 again? Anyway, I get it. There is a limited genetic evidence on CRF2. But what we do know is if you look in the literature, some of us have worked in the place -- space for a long time. We look in the literature, the preponderance of evidence in preclinical models, all the way to nonhuman primates gives you confidence because you see reproducible pharmacology and frankly, just about every preclinical species all the way to monkeys. And so the ultimate test, of course, like most novel target really comes from the clinic what happens in the clinic.
But if you look at the data in nonhuman primates, I'm betting on this one. The second question is the brain component. So how does CRF2 work? If I went through very quickly in terms of the receptor expression, receptor is expressed in the brain. We see effects in the brain. We have done CE-FAST positivity mapping regions of the brain where you light up with CE-FAST. We see overlapping regions with GLP-1, but we also see distinct regions. And we think that the weight loss effect, at least the food effect comes from hitting brain centers for hunger feeding and satiety, okay?
We also see -- we've also studied beyond the brain, we've also looked at activity in the periphery. In the periphery, you see effects in muscle. If you look at skeletal muscle, you see not just lean mass, you see actual increase in muscle mass. We see increase in muscle fiber. We see increase in muscle function. We've tested effects on muscle force contraction. You see an effect in muscle force contraction. And when we look at the profiling in the muscle, what we do see is anabolic mechanisms, increases anabolic opportunities.
If you look at genes and proteins that play a role in building muscle, they go up. Genes that are catabolic to muscle will go down. This is the opposite of what we see with the incretins, stark opposite of what we see in incretins. We see also increases in protein synthesis and so forth. So all suggesting anabolic effects in skeletal muscle. When you also look in the heart, you see increases in cardiac output, okay? And the increases in cardiac output is pretty evident. Without increasing having negative effects. You don't have cardiac hypotrophy. You don't see hypertrophy, but you see increase in function, increase in output as well as a decrease in peripheral resistance.
The 1 thing that I would add to this, obviously, it's a lot of -- it's an area of biology that we know quite a bit about, I introduced Dr. Wylie Vale as someone that was quite significant in our history here at Neurocrine in terms of setting up the company. We have someone almost an equal, I'll say almost because he didn't actually bring it directly to us, but he spent his entire career working in CRF that's Dimitri Grigoriadis. He is here in the audience today. So if you ever want to pick his brain about CRF, he's here. But at the heart of the manner, CRF is central to the fight-or-flight response. So if you look up anything on CRF, you'll see how that plays the role.
So when you think about that, it's increased alertness, it's weight loss, it's increased performance. And that's why CRF is such an attractive target for us, either on the side of CRF1 or CRF2. There's a lot of research that's been done over the years, a lot of it pioneered by Neurocrine, but it's an area that it's an incredibly important biological target within a variety of diseases. And that's why I say and introduce CRF2 is something that is going to have a broad applicability across a range of metabolic disorders. We've seen it. We've worked on those models here over time.
Kyle, I will add, while I was at Lilly, my first knowledge of Neurocrine was actually around CRFs, including CRF2. And to the question about clinical validation, to Kyle's point, our heart failure data reproduced the cardiac effects that you see in preclinical models. You see an increase in cardiac output with decreasing peripheral resistance and pulmonary artery pressure. So that part is validated, but that was an acute study.
Myles Minter from William Blair. Thanks for having us all here today. I appreciate it. My question is on -- and I think the comment that it was well tolerated in the elderly population in the Phase I there. Are we going to see that data? And if we're not, would you be comfortable in saying that it looks like the profile of direclidine that you saw in the adult from a safety perspective? And then secondly, just the 35 to 50 hour half-life there. How does that impact titration in an elderly or in Alzheimer's disease population?
Yes, really good question. So 569, just for everyone's context, is a relatively balanced M1 and M4 agonist. So I mentioned that with respect to its PK profile, we see a delayed Tmax of about 6 hours with a pretty long half-life of about 50 hours. So in our studies that we've completed with respect to an SAD and MAD study, largely in healthy volunteers and elderly individuals, we've actually seen good tolerability.
What we're specifically looking for, obviously, things like GI issues. We haven't seen much of that, and we're not expecting that because it's not hitting the non-M1 and M4 receptors. We're also looking at cardiovascular issues, the propensity for postural hypotension and falls in elderly population, which would be issues that might be problematic, particularly in AD psychosis population, which is clearly what we're looking forward.
I'm not going to quantify the data at this stage. I think that would be ceding the thunder. I'm not sure about actual presentations. Maybe I'll turn to you, Kyle, in terms of that data next year, but we'll certainly have the ability or we'll certainly have the data present next year, if that's what you want to do.
Yes. I think we'll have the opportunity to look at a number of programs that could present Phase I data. I mean, personally, I don't know how you all feel, but Phase I data is in healthy volunteers. It's not in the patient population typically. So I think you can get some directional information, but the more attractive thing for me is if you see what you need to move the program into Phase II. That being said, across the muscarinics, across some of our other neurology programs across our VMAT2 inhibitors, there is going to be an opportunity for us to share Phase I data.
So I think it's a function of us getting together as a team and see what would be most impactful, hearing your thoughts on what would be the most interesting, and we'll see what we can get out for next year. So it is something that we'll look at. You will see Phase I data next year. I think it's a function of what data is it that's going to be the most impactful for you all.
Corinne Johnson from Goldman Sachs. Maybe a bit of a strategic question, which is, like what was your philosophy as you thought about leaping into the obesity market as to where this is going with respect to patient stratification across modalities, magnitude of weight loss and the muscle sparing benefit? And how do you think about where these programs could fit relative to a relatively intense competitive landscape? And then a related question on strategy is just how do you think about your capabilities to pursue late-stage development and commercialization in this market?
Those are a lot of great questions. I think first and foremost, we believe with CRF and R2 specifically that you've heard me say a couple of times up here today, that's a real competitive advantage for us. We know the space very well. We know where the biologists can take us very quickly. And speed is going to be a very big part of what we look at here in terms of these programs across obesity and other diseases where these might be pointed towards.
We do have a clinical team that has experience in endocrinology. You saw with Jean and what she's done with CRENESSITY, and that team continues to scale to help us bring those programs forward that are entering the clinical development space now, whether it's 1435 or the programs that we've mentioned here today.
So those will grow with the teams as we need them to do so as they move from Phase I and Phase II. But we feel that we're well situated as a company to move those forward aggressively. And given the scale of the company that we have today and our financial profile, we think that we've got a good opportunity here to offer something differentiated for patients. And then when it comes to commercialization, let's get some data first in the patient population, see what that profile looks like and then let's have that conversation. It's a fair question.
Yigal Nochomovitz from Citigroup. I had 2 questions. On the CRF2 mechanism of action, I was wondering if you've seen any evidence of brown fat preservation in addition to the lean muscle mass preservation given the positive attributes of maintaining brown fat could have on metabolic health. And then with regard to going back to neuropsychiatry, for 569 or 567, did you consider potentially or would you consider Parkinson's disease psychosis as an expanded indication?
I can comment on the brown fat component. We have not looked at brown fat. But overall, when we look at fat loss, as you could see, you see a significant loss in fat. Others have. As you know, the brown fat data in rodents have seldom translated to men. And so the extent of that data and the emphasis on brown fat and rodents isn't really a space that we have spent much time on.
With respect to the second question. So actually, we're very interested in Lewy body dementia, which has Parkinsonian features as its core symptomatology. And so we may have an advantage with treating both psychotic symptoms, but also the cognitive impairment that one sees these patients with dementia.
I think in Parkinson's disease psychosis, the other complicating factor you have here with the muscarinics is that still the net effect here is locally to the target itself, you deplete or decrease dopamine, and that can complicate the treatment of Parkinson's. So certainly something on our radar, but not as straightforward or I think as validated as Sanjay suggested moving into Lewy body dementia.
Mohit Bansal from Wells Fargo. First of all, thank you very much for inviting us here. We cannot complain about the weather coming from New York. So 2 questions, if I may. One for Sanjay, one for Jude. So Sanjay, thank you very much for all the help about the simplicity of these trials because they are important. There are other elements as well in neuropsych trials, which are centralized review, making sure there's less variability among centers and everything. Can you talk a little bit about what you are doing more in detail to make sure you ensure success here? That's number one.
And on CRF2, so CRF2 as a target is expressed in CNS. So given the history with CB2 target, I mean, the anxiety or depression, all those issues there, how are you ensuring that like the weight loss doesn't come with the cost of some kind of CNS issues? And is there -- like what should be the safety issues or tolerability issues we should be keeping an eye on given that it's a different mechanism versus incretins?
Yes, I can take the CRF question in the CNS. When you look at the expression of the receptors in the brain regions and what we have mapped, you see effects mostly on centers that drive feeding, motivation for feeding as well as energy expenditure. Unlike what you see with the cannabinoids, which you referenced to, this mechanism actually is an anxiolytic. It's -- agonism is the opposite. It's an anxiolytic versus the CRF1 pathway, which actually drives anxiety and so forth. So -- but it's an excellent question. For a new mechanism going into the clinic, you have to carefully -- we don't think this is part of the mechanism. But in the clinic, you have to monitor carefully many of the safety considerations.
And the only thing I'd add to that, and it's -- there's a bit of humor in this when I mention this. But at least when it comes to CRF1, we studied that mechanism in a variety of diseases, and we haven't seen anything in terms of psychiatry. So does that paint the whole view and picture? Maybe not. But it does lean you into thinking about this mechanism, whether it's R1 as an antagonist or R2 being an agonist of having more applicable -- applicability when you're working in systems that have dysregulation of some sort, whether it's hyperactive or hypoactive. That seems to be the better place where we've seen efficacy and I lean into CRENESSITY there as an R1 antagonist and CH being a disease of HPA Axis dysregulation.
Maybe I'll just quickly address the first question in terms of how we mitigate the placebo response and essentially execute our psychiatrist. Yes, to your point, careful site selection is important. We have some experience with that from our prior Phase II studies. And essentially, really what we want is the best patients being recruited. There's unfortunately a phenomenon of so-called professional patients who go from one trial to another who essentially inflate baseline scores just to get into studies. And then as they enroll in the study, there is a sudden big drop, which has nothing to do with the active treatment essentially.
So minimizing that is important. We do look at all the rate recordings as raters discuss with their patients or enrolling patients, and that's reviewed centrally to ensure that there is quality in terms of enrolling the right patients. And also, we have a blinded analytical process as well where we look at patient data in a blinded fashion from sites, again, ensuring that they're enrolling the high-quality patients.
Ash Verma from UBS. So how are you thinking about the psychedelic or non-hallucinogenic space as a focus of your pipeline? You have 770, but just in terms of extending your leadership as a CNS company, why not get more aggressive in this space, either internally or externally? I mean we've seen a lot of good data, FDA, HHS support and big pharma M&A validation as well. So just curious what's your take on this?
Well, I think we're thinking about it, right? Yes. So we're watching the space very carefully. I mean, from a clinical trial point of view, I know there are concerns about can you really blind these patients because their experience is just so vibrant and clearly could be really hard to reproduce in the placebo arm, looking very carefully at the companies currently right now, which are seeking approval. So I'd say we are interested in this space. We don't have any active efforts right now though.
He's looking at...
I think he's right. We are looking in the space. I think the key component is finding good tractable target handles that can allow you to separate the pharmacology, the good and the bad. And we have some target ideas. So I would say stay tuned.
Yes. I would say that, first and foremost, do I think that there's value for patients here in psychedelics? Absolutely. I think that's something that is only being -- has been reinforced over the past several years. Am I convinced that the molecules that are out there today, particularly those that are more or less natural products, give you the opportunity for a strong intellectual property and commercial return? I'm not there yet. It's a very crowded field and how you can convert the good data into a commercial opportunity that gives the company, not just us, but those in that space, the shareholders that return, that's what's still unclear to me. I think that's why we haven't seen a lot of companies dive into that with both feet in it.
Anupam Rama, JPMorgan. Any chance you might preannounce? Just a broader strategic question for me. On the slides, it said 15% of your resources or kind of pipeline are coming from endocrinology, but we focus so much today on CRF. Any -- as we look 5 years, any chance that, that 15% grows more given the history of the company and your background?
If I go back a couple of years, even before Jude joined in '21, our program was heavily weighted towards more of a pure-play neurology. And it was done so for some of the reasons that I articulated here. In some of the therapeutic areas, you have -- I'd say it's not 100%, but biomarkers, more objective endpoints, the ability to see probability of success or activity before a Phase III trial. Neurology offers that more so than psychiatry.
Interestingly enough, as time has gone by, our neurology assets didn't move forward. We didn't get the data and we didn't hit the profile that we're looking for, but our psychiatry assets won. So I think number one is you do your best to target an ideal profile, but you go where the science takes you and you maximize that when you've got it. And that's where we are with psychiatry.
When it comes to the other areas, I mentioned in my introduction, this concept of bridging the past, present and future. And it really is kind of a 3-pronged strategy. It goes with building out neuropsychiatry first. That's what INGREZZA gave us the ability to do. And then with CRENESSITY and given our recent investments in endocrinology, it makes sense to have invested in endocrinology as our second kind of next tier of programs coming into the clinic. And then our profile of the company allows us to invest in those other areas that we have strengths in, and we need to fill in the back part of the pipeline there in neurology and immunology.
And kind of stole my thunder here, but in 2026, we'll look to get some time together to review the emerging pipeline in those therapeutic areas as well to see what's emerging there because they're trying a little bit of what we're doing in endocrinology, but they'll catch up as well as things move into the clinic. But that is an ideal profile where you're looking after neurology, endocrinology, immunology comprise a larger composition of your portfolio because of improvements in access to biomarkers, objective endpoints and seeing data sooner rather than later. And then the psychiatry portfolio, we would expect to have the right mix over time, which is maybe in the 25% to 30%. But again, we're going to follow the science here and the pipeline will tell us what that composition should look like.
Team, we're going to have our last question before we jump in to Sumant's last question. I did have somebody in the audience ask when will they learn more about the gene therapy programs? So comment on that, and then Sumant will wrap it up.
So on the gene therapy side of the equation, we have a number of programs that are still being executed and developed in the preclinical setting. One of the things that we've done in the gene therapy space, and it's probably not surprising to you all given some of the challenges here is we set a very, very high bar for safety. And we've overlaid that with putting the programs that will offer clearly transformational therapy in the disease states that we're working in. So we know that if we add this gene, we know that with certainty, we're going to be able to help that patient.
So those programs are coming along. We'll have an update on those, I think, at the turn of the year and where we're moving those programs moving forward. But when you have a portfolio like we have now, we do have the luxury of having to choose amongst a number of different programs. And we do use prioritization as something that's a key part of our day-to-day kind of oversight and management of the portfolio. And that's a luxury that we do have and lean on. So we can set that high bar for gene therapy. You can be assured that as one moves into the clinic, all those elements I just mentioned would have been achieved with that program. Was there another question there?
Sumant Kulkarni from Canaccord Genuity. When you eventually get to later-stage trials in obesity, what specific endpoints do you expect to use to best tease out the quality of weight loss versus simply quantity? And on the muscarinic agonist, you mentioned a couple of times that you expect to learn more from others' experiences with those programs. So what specifically do you expect to learn from Bristol's Cobenfy experience on the ADP side when it comes to muscarinic agonist safety in older patients?
I'm not going to comment on the clinical execution for obesity. I'll let Sanjay comment, except to make the point that one of the beauties of the obesity space is successful prosecution of many molecules. And second, there is the next molecules muscle play, the combinations, the likes of [ aducanumab ], myostatin and things like that will offer us great handles that we can follow. I suspect once we get into Phase I, we will be in a place to really begin to outline what it is we're going to do or not do. But I am not the -- Sanjay better comment on the clinical.
No, I think you did a great job. I mean that's a nice thing. We have a template to follow. Clearly, it's not just about weight loss for us. It's about what kind of weight loss. But we have the ability to quantify as others have done in terms of what weight loss is being constituted, whether it be fat or muscle, et cetera. With respect to what we learned from Cobenfy, I think, there's lots actually in terms of how to design appropriately an efficacy trial in AD psychosis with the appropriate endpoints which ideally would change over time, offering a therapeutic window between placebo and active, understanding the appropriate patients as well and also actually how to execute this study with respect to site selection. So there's a lot there. We're pretty bullish in terms of our safety and tolerability. So we're confident we're going to differentiate. But I think the learnings will be about how to successfully execute AD psychosis study.
Very good. Thank you both for helping us out with some questions here. We'll have another opportunity after closing remarks, but I'll spend the last 10 minutes here giving you my final thoughts. All right. So I'm going to hold this slide here for a moment. I guess I'll start by saying it's extremely difficult, as you can probably tell, following these 2 gentlemen in their presentations. I've got Sanjay here with the accent and his medical background and then Jude being the drug developer and engineer that he is, and he looks a lot better in a suit than I do. But I'm going to do my best here.
A couple of things I'd point out just at the outset here. We talked a bit about in my introduction, and you heard bits and pieces either directly or indirectly in the presentations from Sanjay and Jude. Things like execution, evolution, repeatable and innovation. On execution, it means a couple of things to me. It means the organization is doing everything it can to meet the time lines that we're giving you. So I think that's point number one.
Number two, it also means improving our probabilities of success. You heard through Sanjay in his presentation, what we're doing to make sure that we execute very clean, very high-quality neuropsychiatry trials. That's very, very important for us. We do believe that is also a competitive advantage here at Neurocrine because we have the team that manages these studies with a white glove type of service, either alone with directly with the sites or selectively in certain regions with the CRO. I think that makes us quite unique in this area.
Number two, on the evolution side of things, there's some similar overlap here in terms of what we're able to get by evolving the pipeline. By evolving, I mean diversifying. So today, we're heavily in psychiatry. I love the area, obviously, been committed to it my entire career here at the company. I also know that it can be risky despite all of our execution. And one way we can do that is by moving into areas that balance in the absence of those biomarkers, harder endpoints and earlier signs on activity. So our way of evolving is leaning on to the endocrinology expertise that we've gained over the years and more recently solidified with getting CRENESSITY over the finish line, but building on that by moving into endocrinology with our background on CRF. So that's the link there through execution and evolution. You put these together, and that's where you get your repeatable innovation. And that's what we're here and hope that you leave us -- leave with today.
So thanks for spending the time here this morning. I do want to go back to the key takeaways that I presented in the opening session, just to see how we did and see if you're coming away at the same kind of notes for today. Number one, I think we started with reviewing all the great progress our team has made across R&D. I think what you saw there was not just a set of programs, but an emerging durable, innovative R&D engine that's going to deliver one new medicine every 2 years. You also got some insights on where the R&D engine is going to be pointed for the future. Jude did a really good job of sharing with you his view that this engine is performing at max performance right now, maybe even faster than I thought, actually, Jude. But it is doing quite well for us and giving us a lot of differentiated molecules by which we can move into clinical development.
Overall, this view kind of reinforces that execution evolution, repeatable innovation. It puts Neurocrine in a state -- position of sustained growth and having multiple value creation events for the remainder of this decade and beyond. The other things that I touched on is I revisited the strength of our foundation. In my view, if I tell the Neurocrine story to someone else, what makes us special, we're one of the very few companies our size that's discovered and developed multiple first-in-class medicines. We've also launched and developed a blockbuster in INGREZZA. And we also stand on the threshold of a new era with CRENESSITY, which I think is going to be poised to be our next blockbuster in congenital adrenal hyperplasia.
So if you combine all these elements with the scientific rigor that you heard here, the execution, our commercial capabilities, it does allow us to pursue programs with conviction and deliver them to patients. And that's what we're here and all about.
On the neuropsychiatry side of the portfolio, I think, what you heard from Sanjay is that there's great -- and actually, Dr. Krystal, we presented this idea of an era coming about in this space of major innovation. And we're part of that with our first-in-class AMPA-PAM with osavampator. And I'll say about osavampator, I'm going to -- it's kind of the elephant in the room here. It sounds like a dinosaur. Maybe that's how you can remember it better. But osavampator is a first-in-class medicine for major depressive disorder. It's one of the most exciting mechanisms that I'm aware of out there today in major depressive disorder. We've got a really special molecule here.
We showed you Phase II data that was robust, meaningful, statistically significant over placebo. And if you look at that safety and tolerability profile, really paints the picture of a best-in-class medicine for major depressive disorder. You also heard all the Phase IIIs are up and running day and night in 2027 -- to 2027 for osavampator.
The same can be said for direclidine in schizophrenia. So direclidine is our muscarinic M4 agonist. We showed you great Phase II data as well. All the Phase IIIs are up and running. Data here in 2027 to 2028. And then when it comes to the muscarinic portfolio, we showed you advancements here on direclidine. We've already initiated a Phase II trial in bipolar mania, and we just recently launched the Phase II trial with our dual M1/M4 agonist in schizophrenia. Both of these Phase II trials will read out in the same time frame as our Phase IIIs. And then we have the second-generation VMAT2 inhibitors. We're moving them into tardive dyskinesia next year in a Phase II trial, all of them offering very differentiated portfolio.
In terms of endocrinology, we leaned on our 30 years of pioneering work on CRF to show you that we're evolving and expanding our footprint on this mechanism. CRENESSITY with CRF1 is the anchor, of course. It gives us the ability to move into HP axis dysregulated diseases like CAH. But you can see behind CRENESSITY, there's a whole number of other next-generation molecules and programs led by 1435.
On the other side of the coin, we opened a new door with CRF2 agonists and peptides in metabolic disorders, and we're leading with 2118 -- NBIP-’2118 in weight loss while preserving muscle mass. So this is an increasingly area of high unmet need. And obviously, it's a very attractive field right now externally. But make no mistake, on CRF2, we do believe this is going to be a whole new mechanism within metabolic diseases, and we're hoping to be there at its infancy and leaning on all of our history to make sure we continue to be a leader in this space.
So I showed you the pipeline early on in the introductory section. This is the same view. Trust me, it's the same 12 programs. But if we build out our Phase II portfolio by progressing direclidine into a Phase II study in bipolar mania, if we progress our dual M1/M4 agonist, NBI-'570 in schizophrenia, you see that Phase II or mid-stage pipeline grow. We've also added in here our 3 endocrinology programs that Jude reviewed here as well. This represents the clinical program that we plan on having by the end of next year.
Now there are some programs that are absent here. And that goes back to my earlier remarks in our Q&A here on the immunology and neurology side of things. We'll look to give you an update on that sometime in 2026 and what we're working on there. But a couple of other things why this pipeline is here. Just a quick reminder, we have our R&D metrics that 4-2-3. We hit that this year, 4 new Phase I starts, 2 new Phase II starts, and we have 3 programs in Phase III. That's the first year since we put this in place that we've achieved these metrics. We need to be able to do this over and over again. So that's the goal, execution, evolution, innovation to deliver on value-creating events over and over time.
So as we look forward then into 2026, to get to the data readouts that I just mentioned, we know what's in store for us. It's going to be a year of execution across those Phase IIs and Phase IIIs. We would like to deliver Phase I data. We had a couple of questions, Myles, I think you were asking about Phase I data. We do look at sharing that with you next year. We've got a number of different programs that, that could be. So we're looking at that now when they'll be available and what's the most interesting. So stay tuned on that. And I mentioned that we'll give you the updates on our neurology and immunology interest.
So just a couple of closing remarks then before I break here for lunch. If you look at everything that we presented today, there was a lot there. There's a lot of new information. You're going to need to take some time to digest it, have more discussions with us. But if I think about 2026, it really boils down to 2 key things: building strong momentum for the future, and having smart strategic diversification occur across the portfolio. Now I know I'm the last one between all of us here and lunch. So just some quick thank you to everyone in the audience and everyone listening online. Our shareholders, clinicians, analysts, employees, really appreciate you being here and providing continued support.
I hope you heard from Sanjay and Jude and I, the enthusiasm for everything that's going on here. It really does paint the picture of a very bright future. But ultimately, for me, as I stand here, I'm excited because, I think, it paints a picture for Neurocrine as being one that's enduring, where we cannot only discover and develop medicines. We've shown you we can do that, but as to reliably bring everything that's in the pipeline to patients, and that's why we're here. So I think with that, I'll close, and I'll thank everyone once again and maybe have some more discussion for lunch.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Special Call - Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Piper Sandler 37th Annual Healthcare Conference
1. Question Answer
Well, let's kick things off. This is David Amsellem from the Piper Sandler biopharma research team. We're delighted to have Neurocrine here. We have Matt Abernethy, CFO. We have Eric Benevich, Chief Commercial Officer. We have Todd Tushla, director of Investor Relations. Thanks, gentlemen, for joining us.
So it's been quite a year. So I would love to turn it over to Matt for just a few opening remarks on, I guess, a reflection on what's been to say the least, an interesting year, both for Neurocrine and for the biotech space, we're at large.
Well, I like how you said delighted to have us here. I think this year, anybody who thinks it's been a delight, I think, is fooling themselves. I was talking to investor before this, and they were reflecting on we're sitting here in a really good space -- spot from a stock performance, but getting here, man, it's been a slog, I think, for the entire industry. So I think that there's a lot going on in the industry and in the sector. And then for us, as a company, we're actually executing quite well. I think you'd agree with that.
It is early. It is 6:30 a.m. back in California. And so I thought maybe I'd share a little bit about what motivated me to get out of bed this morning and what motivates us to get out of bed every single morning. The 3 things that come top of mind and colleagues, please jump in here. Number one is the patients that were in a sector to help patients. Number two is just the fact that we work with some great people. And then number three, I love the challenge of biotech, and I'll get to all 3 of these here in a minute.
If you think about the patients, you think about somebody with tardive dyskinesia, and Eric was the man who launched this medicine 8 or 9 years ago. Somebody with tardive dyskinesia is dealing with an underlying mental health condition. They have depression, they have bipolar, they have schizophrenia. They develop these movements. Their mental health may be in check, but these movements won't go away in their face or in their hands or in the trunk. And up until 2017, there were no approved medicines. So Eric and team have now taken that medicine, INGREZZA, to now being around $2.5 billion alone this year, but only 10% of patients with tardive dyskinesia are being helped with the VMAT2 inhibitors today. So significant room ahead.
In addition, in December of last year, a year ago, we received approval for CRENESSITY, which is for patients with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. They have not had any approved treatment option in over 70 years with the only option for them to take it very high doses of steroids every single day of their lives. And as Eric and others like to say, steroids, we all know, they're bad for your bones, bad for your brain and bad for your heart. And 1 year into launch, we've helped 10% of those patients. We're not satisfied with where we're at. We're going to accelerate that path to peak.
On a personal level, it's just been a blessing. I think many of you guys might know, but I'll just say it just for some holiday spirit. My son has CAH. And he -- we dealt with CAH his entire life, and it's what brought me to Neurocrine 8 years ago. And 7 years after I joined, it was approved. And Ian, my son have been on that medicine for the last 12 months, and it's exceeded all of our expectations and really changed the trajectory of his life. So when I think about the slog of the year, at the same time, I have this blessing of my son being helped and aided, you know that, that can help to many more patients. So thanks for listening to that personal story.
The second piece, really the people. Eric has a field sales team and the medical teams go up community mental health centers every single day, trying to help patients with tardive dyskinesia and then also going into endocrinologists offices. We have a great team that is kicking some butt in the field. We also have 1,000 people back in San Diego working on whatever the next new medicine is going to be to help patients with their neuro. And we're going to share more about what they're working on at our R&D Day here in a few weeks.
And then lastly, let's talk about a challenge. I'm competitive. I've played Vision One Athletics and challenges are something that's part of biotech. Medicine sales, drugs readout in ways that you wouldn't expect. Competition pops up. And then most recently, we've been having the challenge of the IRA and implications of what Inflation Reduction Act is going to have on our company. And I had an investor she said to me 5 years ago. She said, "Matt, okay, IRA is hitting you in the face right now. Did you got punched? What are you going to do about it?" And what we did was we did what we could control, maximize the value of INGREZZA. We have to now have the second going to be blockbuster in CRENESSITY. And we've built a real company with an extensive pipeline and that challenge I think that we've met that quite well. And over the last couple of weeks, you've heard the data that's been read out from the government and then also our competitor's commentary, we feel like it can be very manageable from an INGREZZA perspective from 2027 to 2029.
We have the substrate, I think, to take us beyond $20 billion in market cap. That's our aim to get out of this $10 billion to $20 billion market cap zone. We have the financial resources. We have $2 billion in cash, no debt. We will be looking at business development activities or opportunities. If the right ones pop up, we'll, of course, act. But it's not something we need to do to be successful, but we can do it if the right opportunity presents itself. So that's a bit of a long-winded way of giving a recap on where we're at as a company. But what's your view, David, in terms of how the year has shaken out for Neurocrine and for the industry at large?
I would say to paraphrase, a great writer. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. And I think it right now, looks like more of the former than the latter. And let's hope that continues into '26.
You touched on a number of questions I was going to ask. But first, thank you very much for sharing your story about your son and I'm thrilled for him. That's awesome, for lack of a better term, that is awesome. So...
It really does put in perspective, we work to help patients. And when you can personalize it, and I think a lot of the diseases we work with even I'm sure we'll talk about the pipeline, treating -- working on new medicines for patients with major depressive disorder, for example, those with [indiscernible] I think people in this room might struggle with it. You also have definitely family members struggling with it. It is very rewarding to think about the patient on the other end of all of our activities.
So I wanted to pick your brain, Matt, on M&A. And we were talking in the hallway about M&A activity picking up. And you get asked the question all the time. And it's an appropriate one, particularly as the cash balance continues to grow. I guess my question here is you've built a pretty large commercial infrastructure in neuropsychiatry. And one question that I always think about is the extent to which you can leverage that, not just with your internal pipeline, but externally. So I guess my question here is, how do you think about that? And how are you thinking about what I like to call, larger scale M&A beyond -- well beyond what you've done historically?
Yes. I mean, Sky is somewhat the limit. I guess it's a blank canvas for us in terms of how we use our balance sheet, how we use our cash position. But for right now, we're very focused on maximizing the opportunity of INGREZZA as well as CRENESSITY. I would look at this man on my left, what he's created in our commercial infrastructure, you're in my left, Eric Benevich. The commercial infrastructure that he's created, our ability to engage with psychiatrists, long-term care facilities, neuro and then now with Endo. We do have a significant strategic asset that, as he would say, keep feeding me, keep feeding me with more or new products. And so I do think when we look and screen the canvas or screen the universe for potential targets, that's really where we're focused on what medicines over the next 5 years could come into the commercial infrastructure that Eric and team could maximize. So there aren't a lot of assets out there.
And then -- and so you know that your strategy can't solely rely on business development. You have to have a combination of both business development and internal innovation. But of course, as we look externally, it's really thinking about a commercial product that can come to market over the next 3 to 5 years as we navigate both the IRA window, and then also the readout of our Phase III trials in major depressive disorder and schizophrenia in 2027, I think we're going to be set up for quite the transformation over the next handful of years.
And certainly, to the extent that direclidine and osavampator bear fruit, you have a readily leverageable sales organization for that. I guess my question was more on external candidates, and I know that's a harder question to answer.
Well, in psych, it is much more difficult to think about those assets outside, but you can see from an M&A prospective, you see the likes of intracellular being acquired. You had Cerevel acquired, Karuna acquired on the muscarinic categories. And so I think that for us, based upon the results that we saw in our Phase II trial and also the muscarinic portfolio that we have, we feel like we're pretty heavily loaded up in sight from an internal development perspective and likely not the category that we'd be looking at externally to potentially in-license we would be more focused in the neuroendocrine and adjacent spaces.
Got it. So you alluded to IRA. And obviously, we got more clarity from your competitor. So a lot of different pushes and pulls here. I mean you've talked to commercial contracting earlier this year. Now we have clarity on what your competitor pricing will be on Part D in '27. But I wanted to get your thoughts on how are you thinking about what it all means for INGREZZA, both nearer term, you've contracted on -- with commercial plans. So what does that mean for directionality of pricing, both near term '26? And as you think to '27, '28 and '29 and as you think about your own negotiation and being -- having the benefit of the small biotech exemption?
Yes. So I think in a nutshell, excuse me, we're -- we appreciate that the market doesn't like uncertainty and that now that the second wave of negotiated products, the government announced the MFE prices last week that essentially has lifted a little bit of the fog in terms of what the -- at least the competitive dynamics will be in '27 and beyond in the VMAT2 category. But I do think that in general, the IRA doesn't change our strategy. And what I mean by that is we're going to continue to help as many patients as possible that have either tardive dyskinesia or HD chorea. As Matt said earlier, only about 10% of people today living with TD are being treated with a VMAT2 inhibitor. And INGREZZA has exclusivity out to 2038. So about 13 more years. So there's a long runway and a lot of headroom in terms of continuing to build the market.
Today, we estimate about 10% of people living with TD are currently being treated, and we ask ourselves the question, how do we get to 15% treatment rate. How do we get to 20% or even 30% treatment rate. And so we're going to continue to drive awareness, recognition, diagnosis and treatment with INGREZZA. Specifically, you asked about contracting. So I can say we're very comfortable with the position that we're in right now from a formulary coverage perspective, over 70% of the lives in Medicare, INGREZZA is on formulary. And in Medicaid, in commercial, it's over 90% coverage. So we have locked in those contracts for 2026. So you can expect that the coverage situation next year will be very similar to what it is today.
And we're starting the process now of engaging in conversations with the Medicare plans for 2027. And now that the MFP price for deuterated tetrabenazine has been announced, I think that -- it will remove some of the uncertainty around what those negotiations are going to be like. Ultimately, though, as Matt said, we feel like it's a very manageable situation. And certainly, we expect to maintain coverage in '27 and '28 to be able to continue to grow our business. And in '27, we'll be entering into negotiations ourselves for 2029 or MFP implementation in 2029. And we expect to be able to negotiate with CMS, an MFP price that reflects the superior value of INGREZZA.
So you made, Eric, some interesting comments on the third quarter call about the per-milligram pricing for your competitors. So in other words, certain strengths of your competitor being more expensive and that payers are both catching on to that. I'm wondering what that means for INGREZZA in terms of access relative to your competition?
Yes. I think that, that is a part of our competitor's strategy to push doses higher. They do have a per-milligram pricing structure, the higher the dose, the more revenue per patient. And certainly, it's something that we point out to payers. You may note that some of the big health plans and PBMs, for example, are covering only the BID formulation of deuterated tetrabenazine and not the newer, more expensive XR formulation. So I do think it is one of the factors that allowed us to significantly increase our formulary coverage this year in 2025. We had a couple of plans that came to us earlier in the year and said they'd like to add us for '26 and if possible, even pull that forward into 2025 because they could see that the costs were escalating for the competitor.
And certainly, one of the things that they value about INGREZZA besides the clinical profile is the cost certainty. We have relatively flat pricing. And so regardless of what dose, and by the way, all the -- all 3 doses are clinically effective doses. So no matter what dose the patient is on, like the health plan or the PBM understands that they're not going to experience dose creep and cost escalation.
But in general, our contracting strategy is to ensure that patients have access. And then also, we believe in patient choice and clinician choice. So as we're engaging with these plans, it's not in a spirit of trying to become a preferred physician product. We truly want just parity, and that's what we've had, and we'll allow the plans and the clinicians to pick which medicine works best. And I think that our team has done a tremendous job between access as well as our expanded sales force. We've seen this year the share of new-to-brand patients shift in a positive way towards INGREZZA, which is ultimately the lifeblood of what we're hoping to achieve in maximizing the value of INGREZZA.
How would you contextualize the latest sales force expansion? I guess what I'm trying to better understand is the audience. I mean you've been calling on psychiatrists but is this latest expansion with an eye towards APNs, PAs, nurse practitioners or even primary care practitioners. I mean, just help us understand what you're trying -- who you're trying to reach with the latest expansion?
Yes. And just taking a step back on our Q3 earnings call, we announced that we'll be expanding our -- actually both our INGREZZA and CRENESSITY teams in 2026. We expect those expansions to be completed and implemented by early Q2. So we're in the process right now of executing on that plan. So what's the rationale for it? Essentially, it's investing in growth and it's really investing in the momentum that we're seeing in the marketplace. The VMAT2 category, we're talking about INGREZZA here. The VMAT2 category is 8 years in for both ourselves and for our competitors from Teva. And we're seeing double-digit growth -- volume growth in the VMAT2 category, which is amazing for a category that's 8 years in. And INGREZZA is growing faster than the VMAT2 category. We implemented an expansion in 2024, and we saw pretty quickly that it was paying off. In the meantime, the number of VMAT2 writers continues to grow. And I mentioned on the Q3 earnings call, that today, the number -- the size of the VMAT2 base of writers is 30% larger than it was just 2 years ago at the same time. So this is a rapidly expanding category and a rapidly expanding base of prescribers. So you hit the nail on the head when you said a lot of them, the majority of them are advanced practice providers. So we're talking about psychiatric nurse practitioners and physician associates. They really are filling the gap in behavioral health, and they're providing today the majority of behavioral health services. And for both ourselves and for our competitors, advanced practice providers are now the largest group of prescribers of VMAT2. So we're going to continue to make the investments where we see that it's going to make sense. But this is, once again, investing in growth and investing in momentum.
So let's switch gears to CRENESSITY in the few minutes we have left. I mean there's lots to touch on. But in terms of CRENESSITY, obviously, a strong early ramp. But one thing I did notice and wasn't lost on anyone is that patient enrollment forms were down sequentially in 3Q versus 2Q. So just help us contextualize that and -- help us understand if you think there's any pent-up demand effect. I mean, certainly, when you have a drug where nothing has been approved historically and enters the market, there's going to some pent-up demand. So how should we think about that?
Yes. Well, first of all, I'll say that we're really very pleased with the pace of the launch of CRENESSITY. This is the first year. We got approved late in 2024, effectively launched right around the turn of the year. And so as Matt said, this is a learning launch. Congenital adrenal hyperplasia, there's never been a specific approved medicine for it. Standard of care for 70-plus years has been glucocorticoids. And certainly, as we go, I think we're going to learn a lot about the dynamics of this CAH category. I think there was a little bit maybe of, I wouldn't call it pent-up demand, but certainly, there were patients and there were providers that were aware of CRENESSITY at the time that was approved and were hand raisers is what I call them, people that were excited to get started on therapy. And certainly, the pace of enrollment and new patient starts exceeded our early expectations. There has been a little bit of a lower rate of weekly adds in Q3. So I would say it's not that different really than Q2, and it's been very steady and consistent from week to week. So not a lot of volatility or variability. We did wind down the open-label extension study in adults in Q2. And so the adults that were on study drug, transitioned over onto commercial product late in Q2, so that did bump up the numbers a little bit. But other than that, we're seeing discontinued very steady and strong adoption and we're certainly very excited about the opportunity to help this patient population.
Matt said, we think that we've reached now about 10% of the overall CAH population, that means that we have a long way to go in terms of helping the majority of people with CAH get better control of their disease and also reduce their exposure to glucocorticoids.
So I think -- a couple of comments because you get -- we get questions about the nuances of quarter-to-quarter patient enrollments and I would just say, it's the drug working. I think the feedback that we get, and I would be curious if you hear this from your KOL checks, but the drug seems to work.
Is it safe? Yes. I think the feedback that we've gotten and I think that KOL said, "Yes, it's safe." So ultimately, if it benefits patient and it's safe and patients are staying on therapy and that's the piece that is compounding. The persistency is quite high, very consistent with what we saw in the open-label extension rollover over 90% of patients stayed on therapy. So you have a great drug that's helping patients and the patients are staying on therapy. This is going to be a significant launch.
And everything you're saying is dovetailing with what we are hearing from KOL checks. A longer-term question though, is the competitive landscape. I mean I'm sure you get asked about Crinetics and atumelnant, their ACTH antagonist. Big picture, how do you think about a space where it's not just CRENESSITY is the only game in town?
It's a big enough market to have multiple products, but how I would just frame it, show me a drug that works for patients that's very safe that's been displaced. You really would have to work hard to think about a better drug that would cause you to shift off of CRENESSITY. So we operate in a way to maximize and accelerate the path to peak. And we'll deal with competition over the long run. But we really like the results that we're seeing so far.
Okay. Well, we're out of time. Looking forward -- very much looking forward to your R&D day in San Diego on the 16th. And so we'll certainly have a lot of opportunity to ask about the psychiatry pipeline, but we'll leave it here. Thanks, Matt. Thanks, Eric, and thanks, Todd.
That and the R&D transformation that's been underway at Neurocrine for the past 5 or 6 years. So we're going to be happy to host you.
Terrific. Looking forward to it. Thanks, everyone.
Thank you.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Jefferies London Healthcare Conference 2025
1. Question Answer
Hi, everyone. My name is Phoebe Tan, and I am an Associate on Akash Tewari's team. And today, I have the pleasure of hosting Neurocrine. I think I'll just hand it off first to give some high-level remarks.
Thanks, Phoebe, and thanks to Jefferies for having Neurocrine here at the Jefferies Conference in London. It's always great to be here at this time of year, especially in London. The only challenge that we have is sometimes keeping our energy up being from the West Coast. So to help with that energy, I think I'll start with our favorite. We will be making forward-looking statements here this afternoon. And I would like to direct you all to our latest SEC filings for the risk factors of the business.
So with that, hopefully, that we're all level set here today. Maybe a quick introduction on Neurocrine. The key pillars of our near to long-term growth really begins with INGREZZA, and I'll be talking about all these pillars in a little bit more detail, but just to highlight them here. INGREZZA is our medicine for tardive dyskinesia, it's approved in 2017 and subsequently a few years later for the chorea associated with Huntington's Disease, that's Pillar 1. Number two is CRENESSITY. It's our recently approved medicine for a rare endocrine disease called congenital adrenal hyperplasia. It was approved in December '24. So we're in our first full year of launch. And the last piece I'd mention here is a deep and sustainable R&D pipeline.
So a lot to cover here in my opening remarks, but I did want to outline those here, and then we'll walk through each one of these. Maybe to start back on Q3 and our performance, a reflection on Q1 and Q2. In my opinion, Neurocrine is entering a new chapter, one on revenue growth, and we've seen that over the years, driven solely by INGREZZA, but also revenue diversification now with CRENESSITY and then a deep and sustainable R&D portfolio. If you think about the revenue drivers here of INGREZZA and CRENESSITY, they're driving performance and giving us a lot of momentum here towards the end of the year, and it will set us up quite nicely in '26.
In terms of actual numbers in Q3, $790 million in enterprise-wide revenue. That's almost 30% year-to-year growth. We also saw double-digit quarter-to-quarter growth on revenue, and that diversification piece that I mentioned there with INGREZZA, on top of INGREZZA, we saw at 12% for the quarter. So a lot of things exciting here at Neurocrine as we transition to a multiproduct commercialization company.
So a few things on INGREZZA, that first pillar I mentioned. It's amazing to sit here today and talk to you about a medicine that was launched 8 years ago, and we're still talking about record new patient starts. We're still talking about gains in market share. In Q3, we saw $687 million in revenue. That's about 12% year-to-year growth, 10% quarter-to-quarter growth. And again, a record quarter for new patient starts and TRx. All these things are really good. They don't happen by accident. It's because of the strength of the brand, the execution of our team. Eric is here, he will be able to talk about some of that today, as well as the demand among patients and physicians out there for a medicine like INGREZZA in particular for tardive dyskinesia.
And that growth piece is really important. We reaffirmed our guidance in Q3 of $2.5 billion to $2.55 billion this year, and that's with a context or a drop background of 800,000 patients in the U.S. with 90% still not being on a VMAT2 inhibitor. So it's a very sizable product, really good growth and still a lot of growth that remains out there. And we're going to lean into all the differentiating aspects of INGREZZA. Unsurpassed efficacy that has 3 different domains. One of them is the first dose is an efficacious dose. We also have best-in-class efficacy when it comes to symptom relief of the movement disorder itself as well as quality of life measures. We also have a novel formulation for INGREZZA for patients that suffer from dysphagia, and we have advantages in specific special patient population. So a lot to be excited about INGREZZA. I mentioned about the performance, the growth that remains and we have intellectual property out to 2038.
So that's INGREZZA, that's been driving a lot of our performance over the past 8 years, and we look to build on that with our medicine that was recently approved, CRENESSITY. I mentioned this is our second pillar. In terms of where we are with the launch, we often say, so far so great. It has gone exceedingly well and we're beating the expectations that we put upon the product in terms of its first year performance in sales. We saw 540 enrollment forms in Q3, $98 million in revenue and our reimbursement rate was very high, 80% of all dispensed scripts went on to get reimbursed for the patients. So a very good early start here thus far. In terms of annualized rates with that $98 million, you can see we're already on a clip for $400 million in revenue.
From Q1 to Q3, you sum up our enrollment forms, we're about 1,600 new patient starts this year with an eye on 2,000 by the end of this year. That's 10% of the prevalent population in our first year of launch. So a lot of exciting things with CRENESSITY as well with intellectual property out to the early 2040s. We're hoping to change the standard of care for patients. So excited about CRENESSITY as well on top of INGREZZA.
And then the last piece I'll mention here is our R&D portfolio. While our commercial franchises are thriving, we've had a lot of productivity gains across research through Phase I and Phase III development. This will lead to a lot of advantages for the organization in terms of long-term growth. I think one of the things that we often don't appreciate is the effort that is required to develop a deep and diversified portfolio, and we've got that at Neurocrine now, and we're looking at being able to leverage that in terms of the focus of the programs that we have currently in the development today.
So a couple of other things to mention here on this is that we do have some very admirable but achievable goals for R&D productivity over the next couple of years at steady state, which I'm hoping is by the end of this decade. We hope to be able to offer patients one new medicine every other year. We often get asked, Kyle, how are you going to do that? Well, it's simple. We've changed the way with which we approach research in our organization. We brought in capabilities that take us and expand upon our small molecule expertise into peptides and biologics. And we've also had a very deliberate focus on validated targets, genetically or clinically.
And when you bring those pieces together, you can actually talk about bringing the right modality and attaching that to the right target and the right disease. And there's a multiplier effect that you see there, both in time and moving programs through development as well as probability of success. And we're seeing that already. This year, we have at least 4 new Phase I starts on our radar, 2 new Phase II starts, 3 programs in Phase III, and we hope to do that over and over again, and that gives rise to this opportunity to develop multiple medicines for patients over time.
So we'll be sharing some of these ideas with you and our productivity at our R&D Day on December 16. Hopefully, we'll be able to see some of you there. We'll have a focus on the neuroscience aspects of the portfolio, namely in psychiatry across osavampator, our program for MDD that's in Phase III right now. Our industry-leading muscarinic program, which is led by direclidine. That's in 2 Phase II trials for schizophrenia. We're moving that same molecule into Phase II later this year in bipolar mania. And then one of our other muscarinic programs that's a dual M1/M4 agonist will be moving that into a Phase II trial as well.
So information around that, our strategy across the muscarinic as well as information and data pertaining to our VMAT2 follow-on program to INGREZZA will all be topics that we'll cover, and then some of our early stage programs that will be graduating and moving into clinical development across some of our core therapeutic areas. We'll be able to frame the strategy around those molecules and bring in some data into focus as well for you all to see that.
So I think we'll have a lot of good discussion that comes out of that. Jude Onyia who's not here, but is our Chief Scientific Officer, will lead that discussion on the earlier aspects of our portfolio. Sanjay here, our CMO, will lead you through the clinical aspects, and we hope to have a good day around that.
So to sum things up, looking ahead, I'm really confident of the direction of the company. Our strategy is sound. I like the execution that we've seen here in the past couple of years. It moves forward our organization in terms of the pipeline of our products with both clarity and purpose. We're expanding the commercial portfolio. We're advancing and growing the pipeline, and we're investing in the next generation of innovation.
So I think with that, we can turn it over to questions.
Great. Thank you for that intro. So starting with INGREZZA, for your full year guide, you're saying $2.5 billion to $2.55 billion, which implies a low growth rate quarter-over-quarter of negative 6% to 1%. Can you talk about the dynamics there in terms of -- I know there was 1 extra week in Q3, but just kind of expectations there and the pricing dynamics.
So we did see in Q3 of INGREZZA, just to level set everyone, $687 million in revenue. I mentioned this in the opening remarks, that's about -- depending on year-to-year growth or quarter-to-quarter growth, that's 10% to 12%. So it was a very sound quarter for us, there was 1 extra week. But even still, the volume that we've been seeing across the various quarters, whether you're looking at NRx or TRx, it's interesting 8 years in.
Every quarter this year, we've had a new record NRx and a new record TRx. And I think that speaks to a couple of things. One is we had a sales force expansion late last year as well as some improvements in market access this year. Those 2 have come together and really helped us drive future growth for the plan or for the medicine. And we're going to lean into that for the remainder of this year, it's going to give us great momentum into 2026.
Great. And then just to confirm for Q4 and Q3, there's a 5% negative impact on pricing. And how should we expect that to continue into 2026?
Yes, we did pay a bit of a price with some of the market access gains that we were able to acquire in Q2 and Q3. The way that I think about it is that the second half of this year, we saw about a 7% price decline relative to our 2024 net revenue per script. And we expect that to be relatively consistent all the way through 2026. We're not expecting much of a change moving into next year.
Okay. Great. And can you talk about kind of the dynamics that made you result in increasing access and kind of the pricing impact there?
Well, let me share the wealth a little bit. Eric, do you want to comment on that one?
Yes. Certainly, everyone. Eric Benevich, I head up the Commercial Organization. So coming into 2025, we had less than a 50% Medicare formulary coverage. And we certainly recognize that, especially going into this new IRA era, that coverage is becoming increasingly important that health plans are putting more and more pressure on new medicines, branded medicines in terms of getting patient starts going.
And so as we were negotiating for the 2026 plan year, we were able to pull forward some of those formulary wins into 2025. As Kyle mentioned, in Q2, we jumped up in terms of our coverage from under 50% of covered lives. And then again, we have some additional formularies in Q3. And now we're over 70% covered. And so I do think that, that's a bit of a price volume trade-off that we made, knowing that we wanted to take some of the friction out of the system for our customers in terms of getting new patients started on INGREZZA. Together with the expanded sales team that we put in place last year, we did see that translate into an acceleration of growth and continued records from a new patient start and a TRx perspective.
So overall, we feel really good about the fundamentals of our business. There's still a ton of opportunity in terms of organic growth. As Kyle mentioned, less than 10% of the estimated over 800,000 TD patients in the U.S. are currently on a VMAT2 inhibitor. So a lot of headroom for us and we'll continue to drive growth into 2026 and beyond.
Great. And do you think that any part of that sort of strategy was kind of anticipation of the IRA and kind of trying to get more patients on to INGREZZA? And I know that Teva has kind of mentioned on their Q2 -- on their Q3 call that they still keep their long-term guidance for AUSTEDO. So it kind of seems based on our calculations that the IRA pricing for them is maybe not as impactful as some people might be concerned about. So any comments on your expectations there and how you expect to kind of be treated through now and through your 2029.
Yes. And just to level set a couple of things. One, our fundamental approach to growing the INGREZZA franchise and growing the market remains the same. The majority of patients today are still as yet undiagnosed and the vast majority are not yet on a branded VMAT2 inhibitor. INGREZZA is the market leader from a TRx and from a patient share perspective. So those things don't change.
But you referred to deuterated tetrabenazine and the MFP moment. So Teva hasn't yet disclosed what their MFP price is. We expect that sometime in the month of November. So it could be any day now, they'll disclose what that price is. At that point, we'll know what the pricing looks like for 2027 and beyond. And currently, we're starting the bid process for Medicare formularies in 2027. So we expect that we'll have some back and forth discussions with the Medicare Part D plans. Ultimately, we have a scenario planned around various price points. The commentary coming from Teva, they have essentially said that the negotiations have been in line with their expectations. They've reaffirmed their 2027 guidance and beyond. So it sounds like the incremental discount that they'll be giving in 2027 and beyond is maybe a little bit less than what the market was expecting previously.
Ultimately, we do expect that there will be likely some incremental discounts that we'll be negotiating with health plans in order to maintain formulary coverage during that 2027, 2028 time period. But we do expect that we'll be able to maintain adequate coverage or sufficient coverage to continue our trajectory from a patient growth perspective and ultimately get to 2029, which is our MFP moment. So yes, there are -- there is some thinking around deuterated tetrabenazine and their price negotiations. But fundamentally, our strategy remains the same.
Yes. Maybe just to add a little bit to that. Part of the strategy just comes from the recognition that this is in TD in particular, an incredibly robust and dynamic market. It continues to grow. It's one of those few disease states that actually grows faster than the growth rate of the general population. And you can often ask why, it's because the cause of TD is the utilization of antipsychotics and that continues to grow in the low single digits, multiples above the growth rate of the general population.
So TD, as a disease state, if you will, continues to grow from a prevalence perspective. And it always requires further investment to continue to hopefully get these patients diagnosed and on a VMAT2 inhibitor. With the increased utilization of antipsychotics, there's also new prescribers every year, and it's something that you have to address from a commercial organization as well. So all these things point to a very robust, strong market that continues to grow and the investments we've been making helped us leverage that maximally.
Great. So just 2 follow-up questions here. So first, is it fair then to assume that for 2026, it's flat sort of pricing, then 2027, 2028, there's some incremental decline for INGREZZA?
Yes. I think what we would see based on the contracting that we did for '26, it was pulled forward into 2025, we kind of see where we are settling on a price per script being pulled into '26 relative to where we are now and seeing that be flat. The only change that would be is if, for some reason, we were approached by another plan to further expand access for '26. We don't see that right now. That's always a possibility, especially in this environment that we have now where plans are trying to maximize the rebates as some medicines fall off of that due to IRA. But we'll see.
Right now, our market where we are, from a company and business perspective, is pretty secure through '26. And then when it comes to '27, '28, until we approach our own MFP year in 2029, we would expect probably some incremental rebating on top of what we've done this year for '26, as we may have to adjust any further price discounts that -- or lower price that Teva has to pay ultimately in their MFP year in '27 and '28.
Okay. Very helpful. And then my second follow-up question was for AUSTEDO, I think something that has kind of going under the radar is the much more higher price of XR. How much do you think that contributes to their expectations that they continue the long-term growth? And also how much you think that contributes to the market share dynamics that you see in Q3 and based on full year guide at around 53% to 55% market share to INGREZZA?
Well, I don't know necessarily we're the best organization to ask about their levers that they have for AUSTEDO. I do know that if you just look at the wholesale acquisition cost of our medicine versus there, depending on what dose that you look at, it could be as much as AUSTEDO, our competitor's product, could be as much as 75% higher. So that's something certainly that the plans and payers understand. But for us, we try to focus on what we can control through our own commercial strategy. And that's really maximizing the number of patients that we can get on our medicine. That's a combination of the efforts that we're making, investing in now either from a sales force expansion perspective, education perspective, and the contracting piece does play an important aspect of that for access both now and in '26, and we suspect it will play a role in '27.
Those discussions that we have for '27 are beginning now. It's about a year-long process. And I imagine those will be more meaningful in terms of discussions in the new year once the next round of MFP medicines are published.
Okay. Great. Moving on to CRENESSITY just briefly. Right now, it looks like the launch is outpacing INGREZZA actually at its time of launch. So I guess just commentary on how launch is doing and kind of your expectations for patient adds going forward.
Yes. So we have -- we're really very excited about the early performance that we've seen with CRENESSITY in classic CAH. We have a saying at Neurocrine, so far, so great. But ultimately, it's exceeded our internal expectations from day 1. Just to level set everyone, we got approved last December and had priority review. So we got off to a really quick start right at the end of 2024. And we have seen that the adoption rate within the endocrinology community has been ahead of what we had expected really from day 1.
The other variables that I think were favorable versus expectations were reimbursement. So as a non-formulary drug, we expected that it would take a little bit of time for new prescriptions to get approved. We had put a free goods program in place so that if patients submitted -- if their prescriptions got submitted that we could get them started on medicine while the specialty pharmacy was processing their prescriptions, Ultimately, a lot lower utilization of that free goods program. Most patients are getting their prescriptions approved within a week and getting put on CRENESSITY right away. And then the other variable that's been really favorable has been persistence.
So ultimately, we're still just a few quarters into this launch. It's a learning launch. We're developing a new therapeutic area essentially in classic CAH. And we've got a long way to go. As Kyle said, over 1,600 patients on treatment, on our way towards 2,000 or about 10% of the overall prevalent population within that first year. But I feel really good about the trajectory, the prescriber base that we've been able to develop. And as we mentioned earlier, the fact that we're also increasing our investing in our CRENESSITY team to help really accelerate that adoption.
So touching on that, do you expect to see sort of a similar dynamic that you see when you increase INGREZZA's sales force? Or too early to say?
Yes, when you say similar dynamic meaning being able to increase new patient starts. Yes, I mean, obviously, I think that is one of the reasons for doing this. We want to get as many patients on treatment as quickly as possible, and we're really sort of doing a two-pronged investment with our CRENESSITY franchise.
One is to expand the field sales team. And I will clarify that this is a much smaller sales force than our CRENESSITY team. There's currently less than 50 representatives on the CRENESSITY side. So in terms of number of FTEs, it's rather modest. But the other thing is that we're investing in technology that allows us to identify where these patients may be out in the endocrinology and in some cases, primary care practices. So we're leveraging different data sets, electronic medical records that are blinded to the patient identity, claims data sets, lab data sets, kind of merging them all together with a machine learning approach that can point our representatives towards practices that we feel are likely to have classic CAH patients.
And so that allows us to go deeper into this patient population. We're doing both a building of depth and breadth with our CRENESSITY launch here. We know that most of the endocrinologists that have prescribed CRENESSITY so far have only treated one patient, and many of them have more than one classic CAH patient. So we're able to go back and get additional patients from that base, but we recognize there's a lot of endocrinologists that have yet to prescribe and they have patients as well. So I think you'll see, as we get into 2026, an expansion of the prescriber base, but also more patients coming from the existing current prescriber base.
Okay. Great. And quickly before I run out of time, touching on pipeline. Recently, you announced that NBI-'770 didn't meet the primary endpoint, but you're still looking at next steps. Can you provide some color on kind of what you saw in the data? Is it safety related? And why -- kind of what you're thinking about for next steps?
Yes. '770 was an NR2B NAM program. And so what we did was a small signal-seeking study. We did see some signals with respect to both safety and efficacy. And currently, we're still making a decision in terms of the next steps forward. So we will obviously let people know when we made that decision.
Yes. Maybe just to add to that, the primary endpoint was at day 5, and of course, we collect additional data beyond that, that feeds into some secondary analyses that we're working on. So stay tuned on that. But really excited about osavampator data that came out last year, that's the centerpiece of the Phase III program that we have right now in MDD.
Okay. And two last questions or just one, I guess, where do you see '770 versus osavampator in the space for MDD? And then lastly, if you have any comments on your TransThera deal and any future thoughts on BD?
Well, we're super excited about osavampator. This, for context, is an AMPA potentiator, pretty unique in terms of mechs of action. It does correlate closely with ketamine's glutamatergic effect. But relies on endogenous glutamate, so we think it's more physiological. We haven't seen any dissociative side effects, it's safe and well tolerated in the Phase II SAVITRI study. And the efficacy we saw was pretty substantial. We had a mean change in MADRS, which is a primary endpoint depression of 7.5 points, which is -- represents a very large effect size. The Phase III studies are ongoing. We should have Phase III data in 2027 from the Phase III programs.
So then the TransThera deal, this is for NLRP3 or the NOD-like receptor protein 3. It's an area that we've followed for quite some time. It lies at the intersection as a target between neurology, immunology and endocrinology, which if you know Neurocrine's story, that's right in our sweet spot. We've seen some really compelling data that come out of Novo and Ventus, Sanofi and Ventyx as well as Nomura recently. And what we're able to bring in here from this TransThera collaboration is a combination of molecules that span peripheral as well as CNS-acting that gives us nice, differentiated profiles of other compounds that are in the space. And if things all go well, an early clinical candidate by 2027.
Great. Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Q3 2025 Earnings Call
1. Management Discussion
Good day, everyone, and welcome to today's Neurocrine Biosciences Third Quarter 2025 Results Call. [Operator Instructions] Please note, this call is being recorded. I will be standing by if you should need any assistance.
It is now my pleasure to turn the conference over to Vice President of Investor Relations, Todd Tushla.
Hi, everybody, and a very pleasant good afternoon to you wherever you may be. Welcome to Neurocrine Biosciences Third Quarter 2025 Earnings Call. I'm joined today by Kyle Gano, Chief Executive Officer; Matt Abernethy, Chief Financial Officer; Eric Benevich, Chief Commercial Officer; and Sanjay Keswani, Chief Medical Officer.
During our call, we will be making forward-looking statements. These statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties, and our actual results may differ materially. I encourage you to review the risk factors discussed in our latest SEC filings. After prepared remarks and as is our standard practice, we will try to address all your questions.
With that, I turn the call over to Kyle.
Thank you, Todd. Good afternoon, everyone. Our third quarter results reflect Neurocrine's exceptional execution and the strength of our enterprise-wide momentum as we continue to deliver across our commercial, clinical and operational objectives.
From a commercial perspective, for INGREZZA, the recent investments to expand our sales force and improve patient access drove yet another record quarter for both new patient starts and total prescriptions. Highlighting the persistent unmet need for patients with tardive dyskinesia and Huntington's [ Korea ]. With CRENESSITY, the strong launch highlights its role as a first-in-class therapy, redefining the standard of care for patients with classical congenital renal hyperplasia or CAH. While there is still much to learn, we are encouraged by the early response from the CAH community and the potential to make a lasting impact for patients. Momentum for both INGREZZA and CRENESSITY is strong and we believe continued targeted investments in these commercial assets will accelerate growth into 2026 and beyond.
In our clinical portfolio, I am pleased with the study enrollment progress in our Phase III studies of osavampator in major depressive disorder in direct [ laden ] schizophrenia. We remain on track to meet enrollment objectives for the year. Beyond these late-stage programs, we continue to advance a robust early and mid-stage as expanding through high-quality preclinical programs emerging from Neurocrine's internal discovery efforts. To this end, I'm also happy to report that we are on track to achieve our R&D productivity goals for the year, specifically 4 new Phase I study initiations and 2 new Phase II initiations. Advancing 2 potentially standard of care changing medicines until the final phase of development, while simultaneously driving early and mid-stage innovation represents a record level of productivity for us and positions Neurocrine exceptionally well for the future.
As I reflect on my more than 20 years at Neurocrine and just over 1 year as CEO, I'm deeply proud of how far we've come. Yet as we continue to evolve, I'm even more inspired of what lies ahead. Neurocrine is poised into a new chapter of sustained long-term growth, driven by our science, our people and our unwavering commitment to the patients we serve and investors to support our mission.
With that, I'll turn the call over to Matt.
Thank you, Kyle, and good afternoon, everyone. The third quarter was strong across the board for Neurocrine, with $790 million in net product sales, reflecting 28% year-over-year growth. Driven by continued progress both from CRENESSITY and INGREZZA, congrats to all involved in the performance of these 2 medicines. CRENESSITY grew sequentially from $53 million in Q2 to $98 million in Q3, reflecting strong early adoption and persistency rates. In addition, 80% of dispensed prescriptions are now being reimbursed. Feedback from patients and KOLs remains quite favorable in terms of CRENESSITY's efficacy, safety and tolerability profile. We look forward to continuing to add patients to therapy and to further establishing CRENESSITY as a standard of care treatment for patients with CAH.
Momentum for INGREZZA also continues to build with our third consecutive quarter of record new patient additions in Q3, resulting in net sales of $687 million. Of note, as you consider modeling Q4, the third quarter benefited from a 14th ordering week. Outside of this ordering dynamic, the combination of improved access and our sales force expansion, are resulting in double-digit TRx growth, record NRx and market share gains through the first 9 months of the year.
On the heels of this momentum and strength of the TV market, we have decided to pursue an additional sales force expansion with 3 goals in mind. First, accelerate the development of the TV market between now and 2029, strengthening our position as we navigate the potential impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act. Second is to maximize INGREZZA patient share during this window of time. And third, set the foundation of an expanded psychiatry portfolio, anticipating one or more of our late-stage clinical programs will have successful top line data in 2027.
From a financial perspective, the expanded investment in both INGREZZA and CRENESSITY will result in an SG&A expense increase of around $150 million in 2026. We will, of course, provide a fuller financial picture for Neurocrine in February next year, but I wanted to give you this insight for now.
To close, our capital allocation priority is to remain intact. Number one, drive revenue growth; number two, advance our R&D programs; number three, enable business development; and number four, return capital to shareholders. Our top line growth and financial profile of over $2.1 billion in cash is the foundation for continued investment in our internal pipeline, which will position Neurocrine for sustained growth and enable us to deliver new innovative therapies to patients with unmet needs in the years ahead.
With that, I will now hand the call over to Eric Benevich, our Chief Commercial Officer. Eric?
Thanks, Matt. Q3 was another banner quarter for our brands. Our commercial and medical teams continued to deliver with a record quarter for both INGREZZA and CRENESSITY with combined net sales of $785 million.
Starting with INGREZZA. Performance through the first 9 months of 2025 has been exceptional, reflecting both the strong clinical profile and the continued significant unmet need for people living with tardive dyskinesia or Huntington's [ Korea ]. Past strategic investments to expand the sales force and improve access have been positive, yielding a third consecutive quarter of record new patient starts and total prescriptions. Today, of a population exceeding 800,000, we estimate only about half of those living with TD have received a diagnosis for their uncontrolled movements, and only about 10% are currently being treated with the VMAT2 inhibitor. With exclusivity out to 2038, there remains a significant organic growth opportunity ahead.
Our INGREZZA prescriber base continues to expand, particularly in psychiatry, where advanced practice providers, such as nurse practitioners and physician associates now account for the majority of psychiatric patient care in the United States. As an example, our INGREZZA prescriber base is 30% larger today than it was 2 years ago at this time. In addition, TD prevalence continues to increase in conjunction with broader use of antipsychotic medications. In light of our strong momentum and the significant growth opportunity, we've made the decision to further scale up our INGREZZA sales force to meet this growing demand.
Going forward, we will be expanding and restructuring our INGREZZA sales organization to create 2 dedicated teams, 1 combined [ Neurocrine ] team and our existing Long-Term Care team. Both the [ Neuropsych ] and LTC teams will be expanded to enable us to engage more VMAT2 prescribers than ever before and deepen relationships across our current base of prescribers. Consistent with prior expansions, success will be measured by growth in new patient starts and total prescriptions, metrics, which typically show the full impact of field expansion several quarters after deployment.
The expansion of the sales teams set INGREZZA up well for 2026 and beyond. Will also help position us for the anticipated launches of our next wave of investigational psychiatric medicines currently in Phase III development.
Now turning to CRENESSITY. Our launch mantra of So Far, So Great, remains well deserved with Q3 net sales reaching $98 million in just the third full quarter on the market. During the third quarter, 540 new patients initiated therapy, bringing the total number of classic CAH patients on therapy since launch to more than 1,600. As we've said from the outset, this is a new market we are building, and therefore, this is a learning launch. With CRENESSITY representing the first therapy developed and approved specifically for patients with classic CAH we continue to gain important insights into prescriber behavior, patient dynamics and potential seasonality trends. We continue to see steady adoption. And while the pace of new patient starts may vary from quarter-to-quarter, the strong persistence and adherence rates observed to date give us confidence in continued volume growth going forward.
In the third quarter, patient demand modestly favored the pediatric population versus adults, and skewed towards female patients. Prescriptions continue to be written by a range of endocrinology providers, including those practicing in multidisciplinary centers of excellence, pediatric endocrinologists and community-based adult endocrinologists.
On the payer front, we continue to see strong reimbursement. Launch to date, 9 out of 10 people taking CRENESSITY have received approval for their insurance, and CRENESSITY is affordable with 9 out of 10 people paying $10 or less per month out of pocket, most pay 0. So far, insurance reimbursement has not been a barrier to treatment.
As the first and only FDA-approved treatment specifically for classic CAH, CRENESSITY delivers a compelling combination of efficacy, safety and tolerability. Our ongoing open-label extension studies continue to generate valuable data on quality of life, long-term safety and differentiating outcomes, which will further strengthen an already robust data set. We estimate approximately 20,000 people in the U.S. live with classic CAH. Based on the very favorable receptivity from the CAH community and the opportunity to bring relief to more people with CAH we've made the decision to also expand our CRENESSITY sales team.
As I said in my opening comments, we're executing very well from a commercial perspective. Both our products are fast-growing, innovative first and disease medicines. Given the significant growth potential for each, it was a straightforward decision to expand both the INGREZZA and CRENESSITY sales teams. This is an investment in growth and an investment in our future. Both sales team expansions will be fully completed by the end of Q1, and we can give further color on our progress as we get into 2026. These are very exciting times here at Neurocrine as we make good on our promise to deliver brave science.
So with that, I'll hand the call over to Dr. Sanjay Keswani, our Chief Medical Officer.
Thanks, Eric, and good afternoon to everyone. My prepared remarks for today will be brief as we remain on track for all our clinical programs. We anticipate top line results in the fourth quarter for valbenazine in dyskinetic cerebral palsy as well as for the Phase II proof-of-concept and dose finding study of NBI-'770, that's our NR2B [ NAM ] as an adjunctive treatment in major depressor disorder. As a reminder, positive results from NBI-'770 could support a confirmatory Phase II study or the initiation of a Phase III trial in MDD.
As Kyle mentioned earlier, the Phase III studies for osavampator in major depressive disorder and [ directledine ] or NBI-'568 in schizophrenia continue to enroll well, alongside solid progress for the rest of our early to mid-stage pipeline.
You've heard us talk about our upcoming R&D day throughout today's call. As my colleagues alluded to, we are excited to welcome the Wall Street community to our San Diego [ Catas ] where we'll have an opportunity to provide greater detail into our long-term vision, much of which stems from enthusiasm around our clinical and early-stage programs, plans and recent progress. To provide a bit more detail on the agenda, I will provide an overview of our neuropsychiatry programs with a spotlight on osavampator and our broad muscarinic agonist portfolio.
Following my presentation, Dr. [ John Crystal ], a leading psychiatrists from Yale University will join me for a moderated Q&A session. Afterwards, Jude Onyia, our Chief Scientific Officer, will discuss Neurocrine's ongoing R&D transformation efforts and preview a few of the next-generation programs expected to enter clinical development. We look forward to seeing many of you there as we unveil the foundation for Neurocrine's next chapter.
With that, I will hand the call back to Kyle.
Thanks, Sanjay. I think we're ready to take questions now.
[Operator Instructions] We'll take our first question from Phil Nadeau with TD Cowen.
2. Question Answer
Congratulations on a really strong quarter and great commercial performance. I wanted to just ask about the patient dynamics and patient starts for CRENESSITY. It did seem like enrollment forms were a little bit lower in Q3 than Q2. Was this seasonality or a sign of maybe an early launch bonus? Any insights you can give us on those trends would be helpful as we look to model the next several quarters of CRENESSITY?
Phil, this is Eric. So Obviously, we're really pretty pleased with the overall adoption of CRENESSITY launch to date and with 540 new treatment forms in Q3. And we saw that as a continuation to the strong adoption that we saw earlier in the year in the first half. We said at the beginning, we expected this to be a steady or measured launch. And so far, it really has borne out that way. The weekly adoption has been really consistent over the course of the summer.
We don't think that there's necessarily any kind of quarterly dynamics going on or seasonality. We are still early in the launch, and we'll have to see how things bear out after we've gone through a few cycles. But ultimately, we're really pleased with the enrollment. And with over 1,600 treatment forms through Q3, we're really optimistic and expect to see this accumulation of patients as we go forward.
Phil, thanks for setting the tone also and asking just one question. So just hygiene purposes, we'll stick to the answering the first question that gets asked.
And we'll go next to Paul Matteis with Stifel.
Let me add my congrats on the quarter. I wanted to ask a question, I guess, about the IRA and I hope you bear with me as it has 2 subparts for this [indiscernible] really only one question. Just can you help us set up how you guys are thinking about the upcoming stato price that we'll learn about? And just what are the sort of implications for Neurocrine? And then for INGREZZA, given the increased discounting and now that we're looking at a gross net that's getting up into the mid- to high 30s. Should we think that the worst-case scenario for you has now changed given that the small biotech exemption has the discounting to a level that is actually potentially going to be below where your gross to net ends up?
Thanks, Paul. A lot to unpack there. Maybe I'll start with the first question and see how far we get on that. I think when it comes to [ AUSTEDO ], our view of this is that we'll learn its pricing across both the current immediate release and [ XR ] formulations in November. You should hear from CMS late November, if not sooner than that, but that's what we're planning on currently.
In terms of our expectations, how it might affect INGREZZA. I think where we stand right now is we're trying to understand what the plans might do in reaction to sets pricing. Our view at this point is both the health plans and the PBMs will use a variety of strategies for medicines that go through the IRA as well as those medicines that are not going through an IRA type of moment. And for us, there are things that we know and don't know. And ultimately, where we stand right now is that INGREZZA is an incredibly sticky medicine. Once patients start INGREZZA, they tend to stay on it, which really means we're looking at new patient starts during a 2-year period of 27 to 29 when we reach our own IRA year.
So we'll look to contract here over the next, say, 12 to 14 months. As we approach 2027, we'll look to maximize the number of patients that are INGREZZA between now and the end of '26. And that will help us negate any headwinds on NRxs which to date, it's only about 5% of our total TRx. So on a quarterly basis, that number is quite small. We'll look also to see if there's any learnings from those medicines that are negotiated and become implemented next year. And then I think most importantly here, we'll control what we can across INGREZZA, but across the portfolio, we'll look to build the company as strong as we can.
Paul, this is Eric. I just want to chime in and kind of reinforce a couple of points. One is that we do believe that there's room on formularies for MFP adjacent products. We think that PBMs and health plans will behave differently. There's not going to be sort of a uniform approach that they take. And kind of tying in with our prepared remarks, it's really important that we maximize patient share going into '27 and beyond. And currently, that's what we're doing and that's part of the rationale for the sales force expansion for INGREZZA.
And we'll take our next question from Tazeen Ahmad with Bank of America.
Mine is going to be on CRENESSITY. So is it too early to know this, but are payers already looking for a certain level of steroid tapering in order to continue covering therapy? And just in terms of number of days in 3Q versus 4Q, we're heading into holiday season. So how should we be thinking about the potential for seasonal impact for CRENESSITY sales in 4Q?
Thanks for the question, Tazeen. This is Matt. We're not really anticipating seasonality outside of just the pace and cadence of patient visits into the clinician's office. So nothing on the seasonality front.
In terms of reimbursement, really has not been a requirement for patients to titrate down steroids to a specific extent. It's really looking at do they have the underlying disease and do they have treatment with hydrocortisone? And if that's the case, reimbursement has been quite smooth. I just give a shout out to the team working on this, advocating on behalf of patients. And I'd say the insurance providers can understand the benefit of this new medicine for these patients.
And we'll go next to Akash Tewari with Jefferies.
This is in on for Akash. On INGREZZA, given that you mean sort of [ OcitoXRis ] already much more expensive than [indiscernible]. Is there any changes in payer preferences you've seen thus far? And then just in terms of the IRA negotiated pricing upcoming, how are you able to lock in INGREZZA's pricing through 2026 ahead of this announcement?
Yes. No, thank you for the question. So I think the health plans are seeing that part of what [ Teva ] is doing is trying to push patients to higher dose strengths of both the BID and the XR formulation of deuterated tetrabenazine and since that product has a per-milligram pricing structure, higher doses mean more revenue per patient. Health plans are catching on to that. And we have seen examples of health plans that would, for example, cover the BID formulation, but not the XR.
So I think that the fact that we've seen this dose creep dynamic and/or patients transitioning to the XR formulation being more expensive to the plan that they've been more willing to engage with us. And I think it partly explains the ability that we've had this year midyear to expand our formulary coverage. The coverage that we have now, we expect to carry through 2026. And so in terms of expectation setting for next year, we should expect at least the same level of formulary coverage that we have now.
But in most instances, we're seeing -- we're at parity from a formulary perspective. And that's always been our goal is to take an approach to give clinicians a choice as to what medicine they prefer. And that's going to be our strategy also going forward.
We'll go next to Mohit Bansal with Wells Fargo.
Great. Thank you very much for taking my question. And would love to touch upon the 10-Q filing and the talks about DOJ investigation. Any color you can provide on that? And how should we think about the next time line from this one?
Hi, Mohit. This is Kyle. I appreciate the question here on this. In August, we received a CID, a Civil Investigative Demand from the DOJ requesting certain documents and information attached to sales, marketing and promotion of INGREZZA. Of course, we're fully cooperating with the DOJ. And I think right now, there's not much more to say on that. We'd certainly keep the external community updated when there's material information to share on that.
The only piece I would conclude with is that we have an extremely robust compliance program here at Neurocrine. We take compliance seriously and the responsibility that comes with that. And as we move forward here, we'll continue business as usual because we think that's the right thing to do. Again, we'll keep folks updated as we learn more.
We'll go next to Cory Kasimov with Evercore.
Mine is on CRENESSITY. I guess I'm wondering if you can speak to where you are with getting CRENESSITY up and running at this point at the centers of excellence and then the progress that's also being made in the community setting where [ Docfar ] fewer patients. Are you more or less at every COE at this point? And do you see that opportunity on the community level?
Yes. And just to recap, we estimate there's around 20 centers of excellence out there that care for roughly 15% of the classic CAH patient community. Yes. I mean, all the COEs have now started adopting though, I would say, a different pace. And I think that reflects the sort of the different ways that they work, the level of bureaucracy, the level of access, et cetera. But for the most part, our view is that the rate of adoption that we're seeing in the COEs is mostly a function of the rate at which patients are flowing through.
We've also been surprised, very pleasantly surprised, I think, by the rate of adoption with community endocrinologists that treat the adults. Most of these practices, as you rightly call out, only have 1 or 2 patients. And so that's where you get into a much wider pool of HCPs to reach. And kind of tying back to our prepared comments as part of the rationale for expanding our field sales team to go a little bit deeper into our call universe and to be able to reach some of these practices that we haven't yet tapped into.
We'll go next to Anupam Rama with JPMorgan.
Congrats on the quarter. Could you provide a little bit more color and maybe some quantification around the sales force expansion for both products in terms of the segments that are going to be targeted here for INGREZZA. Is its psychiatry, neurology, long term or for CRENESSITY, general endos versus pediatric endos?
Yes. So in terms of scale, I would characterize it as about a 30% increase in terms of our overall sales footprint across both products. Obviously, INGREZZA is a bigger product. So most of the incremental headcount are going to be going to INGREZZA. I said in my prepared remarks that we were going to be both restructuring and expanding. And what we're doing with INGREZZA is essentially combining our existing psychiatry and neurology teams, and then expanding the headcount there because what we've seen is that we could do a better job, I think, of covering our psychiatry and neurology customers who, in many ways, are more similar than they are different by having a cohesive team versus having multiple different teams with different reporting structures.
So I think that this simplifies things substantially for us going forward. We're going to keep the LTC team separate and we are expanding that group as well. There's been a continuing fast-growing segment for us. So we're excited about increasing our coverage of high-potential psych providers and neurology providers with the Neuropsych team and then adding more headcount into LTC.
The expansion with CRENESSITY is obviously smaller in scale. Our existing team is less than 50. So this is going to be a relatively smaller expansion, but it does allow us to go deeper especially in those community endocrinology practices and ultimately to accelerate adoption in classic CAH and help more patients faster.
This is really a reflection of our belief in the TD market, an opportunity that we have ahead. Eric's track record here, this is probably our fourth expansion. Every time we've done it, we've seen a tremendous response and the team has done a great job driving more patients onto therapy.
So I would look at this investment as clearly being to accelerate the market development and to maximize the number of patients on therapy, and we feel fortunate to have 2 great medicines to do this with.
And we'll go next to Jay Olson with Oppenheimer.
Congrats on the quarter. We have a pipeline question related to [indiscernible]. As you look at potential indications beyond schizophrenia and bipolar, are you considering Alzheimer's psychosis? And are there any particular lessons you expect to learn from the [ Covent ] Phase III study in Alzheimer's when that study reads out and any potential read across to [indiscernible]?
Yes. Thank you so much for the question. So as you mentioned, with 568 or [indiscernible], we're targeting our Phase III program, schizophrenia. We have initiated a Phase II bipolamania study, that's this year. We're also very interested in [indiscernible] psychosis. We do have a pretty robust muscarinic portfolio, and indeed, we'll unveil that at R&D Day in December. But we have a lot of options in terms of which molecule we use and one preferring, and 4 preferring, dual agonist for various indications.
So at the moment, we're thinking about AD psychosis for one of our follow-on molecules, which has particular advantages with respect to safety considerations in the elderly. Yes, we'll be watching BMS' [ Covent ] data very closely. Our understanding is that the [ ADAPT ] Phase III study will be reading out relatively soon. They're going to be lessons learned, I think, for the whole field.
We'll go next to David Amsellem with Piper Sandler.
So I wanted to come back to the sales force expansion for INGREZZA. So you've had a number of sales force expansions over the years over the commercial life of the product. So I guess with that in mind, at what point do you think this commercial organization is going to be rightsized? And also at what point do you think the level of DTC spend is going to be rightsized. In other words, when do we start to see more aggressive margin expansion associated with the product?
So on the margin expansion, we've made tremendous progress over the last 5 years being in the low 50% range. All the way down to this year, we should be in the low 40% range. And growing revenue to almost $800 million this quarter is just a testament to the investments as well as the markets that we're playing in.
So when will we be 100% rightsized we always invest as much as we can to pull as much revenue forward in any of these situations, and we're learning a lot as we go with the TD market. But overall, from a margin expansion perspective, we look into the last part of this decade as being in a place where we'll continue to drive leverage, albeit maybe not as much as what had been anticipated in '26 but it's really with an eye to maximize the number of patients on therapy heading into the '27 to '29 window.
Maybe I'll just add there to that. I think we touched on this already, but the INGREZZA market as it relates to TD is an incredibly robust growth engine for the company. And as much as we lean on the performance of the medicine, we're still only treating 10% of the 800,000 patients that are out there. And that was with the backdrop of the TD prevalence continuing to increase at the rate of growth of the antipsychotics, which is 3% to 4% per year, which is 3 to 4x greater than the general population.
You put all those pieces together, the number of prescribers increases year-to-year as well. It's increasing faster than we've expanded the sales force over the years. In fact, I believe the past 2 years the prescriber basis increased by 30%. So as much as we have looked at ways of reaching all of these patients and prescribers over time, the current structure of our sales organization is actually smaller than some of the companies out there with products just within schizophrenia. So we like where we're headed to right now, but it's still an organization that is rightsized for [indiscernible] dyskinesia not so much for some of these larger psychiatry indications. And I think this is a step that not only helps us with INGREZZA but as Eric said in his opening remarks, sets the stage quite well for us as we look at osavampator [indiscernible] in Phase III and their potential launch in the second half of this decade.
We'll go next to Brian Skorney with Baird.
This is Luke on for Brian. On the upcoming 770 readout, can you talk about your expectations for the data? And what type of result in your view would support a confirmatory Phase II as compared to moving right into pivotal?
Yes. So we are expecting the results of the Phase II study for 770, that's an NR2B NAM this quarter. Just a context, the Phase II is a relatively small signal finding study, to 72 patients total, with 3 active arms as well as placebo. So I think the likelihood is that we would go into confirmatory Phase IIb if the results we see are encouraging. But we won't discount going to Phase III at this moment.
In terms of, frankly, what we'd like to see, we would like to see [ esketamine ] like efficacy, not to do similar from [ SPRAVATO ], but without the baggage of some of the associated side effects, which mandate to our in-house observation period post dose. But I guess we'll see what we see later this quarter.
We'll go next to Brian Abrams with RBC Capital Markets.
I was wondering if you could talk a little bit more about CRENESSITY persistence, just now that you're several quarters. And can you be any more specific in terms of what you're seeing there? And then just the overall KOL feedback around patients who started on the drug early in the launch and the glucocorticoid [ calibration ] at this point now that patients have been on drug for many months.
Yes. I mean the way that I would characterize it is that CRENESSITY's persistence and compliance has been really strong. And certainly, we were hopeful going into the launch that we would see this kind of overall adherence to medication based on our experience in the double-blind studies and the open-label extensions. But the vast majority of people that are starting treatment are in the earlier parts of the year are still on treatment.
In terms of the feedback on the reduction of GCs, obviously, you all have done your doc calls, you're probably hearing the same kind of thing that we're hearing. Patients are on treatment for a period of time, doctors want to see how they can reduce the androgens and then they start the process of tapering down the GCs and it varies a little bit from provider to provider and also, I think, is dependent on the particular situation of the patient.
But overall, we're seeing really good feedback in terms of both disease control with the androgen reductions and also the opportunity to really bring down those GCs to more physiologic or near physiologic levels.
We'll go next to Marc Goodman with Leerink Partners.
Yes. Matt, at the beginning of the year, you were pretty conservative with respect to the CRENESSITY launch. I think your main issue, if I remember, was just reimbursement concerns and how quickly that would be adopted. Obviously, that's been adopted way better than anybody could have expected, I suppose.
So how do we think about gross to nets now? I mean they clearly have come down a lot, just working through the numbers. Are we continuing to move lower quite a bit outside of maybe the first quarter next year just because first quarter is unusual. But if you think about the next 3, 4 quarters, I think you're just going to continue to come down and ramp down some more normalized levels for what we consider an orphan product like this?
Marc, that's quite fair. In terms of a guide for gross to net, I would just characterize it as being less than a 20% gross to net discount and that's something that in the foreseeable future, that's something we would be anticipating. Part of the growth on that dynamics has to do with the nature of the patients. They're primarily commercial but we also have a base of Medicaid patients, so you pay the statutory rebate.
But overall, the rate of reimbursement, as you mentioned, it's above 80%. As Eric said, 9 out of 10 patients have ultimately ended up with an adjudicated claim. So feel quite strong with where we're at and reaching a pretty darn good level in terms of how we think about the future.
We'll go next to Sean Laaman with Morgan Stanley.
Maybe just circling back on INGREZZA. But can you comment on urology versus the site split? And is it a focus on site to the expense of neurology. I think I heard [indiscernible] had a strong uptake in urology, especially during COVID? And what are your plans for neurology?
Yes. Neurology represents about 15% of our total volume. Obviously, all of the business segments, neurology psychiatry and LCC have been growing like gangbusters this year, in particular. But on a relative basis, it's now the smallest segment that we have. And we view it as important, but it doesn't have the same kind of patient potential that we see in psychiatry. And I said in my prepared remarks, the fastest-growing segment is really advanced practice providers that are in behavioral health. And so this reorganization and kind of combining our teams across psychiatry and neurology sort of puts our resources where we see the highest growth potential.
And behaviorally, the psychiatry segment and the neurology segment are more similar to each other than LTC. And so we're keeping LTC separate, expanding that team. We're combining our psych in neurology teams and then expanding that team. And ultimately, we want to make sure that we can keep up with the pace of this market that's very fast growing and continue to drive new patient starts. This is an investment in growth, as we said, and we really like the trajectory that we're on now.
Maybe just to add to that real quickly on the neuro piece. Just keep in mind, a lot of interest has come from the side of the [ Korea ], side of the indication opportunity with INGREZZA. For [ HD Korea ], there are about 30,000 patients in the U.S., about 90% have [ Faria ]. So that 20,000 number is about a [ 4:1 ] ratio to the TD patients that we see out there today. So I think that speaks to some of the volume flow that we see across the neuro and psych piece and that's something that we keep in mind as we look at for their investments down the road.
We'll go next to Yigal Nochomovitz with Citi.
I had one on capital management. You mentioned, obviously, the increase in SG&A of about $150 million to expand both sales forces. So with that in mind, I'm just curious how are you thinking about the continuation of the buyback at the pace of that buyback related to the new $500 million buyback allocation?
Yes. So we have $2.1 billion in cash right now, no debt. We're profitable. Where we're putting the capital right now is prioritizing top line growth as well as investing in R&D at 35% is what our target range is. We, of course, have flexibility to do share buyback. But I would say that our bias is to utilize our capital to -- for business development activities. But right now, focused on driving our own internal initiatives.
We'll go next to [ Karen Johnson ] with Goldman Sachs.
Maybe a question for us. Can you talk about where you stand with respect to share of kind of new to category or new to class patients with INGREZZA versus [ OTAT ]? And where do you think that could go, maybe contextualize that versus where we were a year ago and where you think we could go with the expanded sales force over kind of the next year?
Yes. As Matt mentioned, the new patient starts or NRx in any given week or month are single-digit percent of total TRx. But they're critically important, because of the persistency and compliance that these patients have on INGREZZA, that they represent a significant number of likely refills. And what we've seen really since the beginning of the year with the prior expansion of our field sales team and then the investment that we've made in increasing formulary coverage, particularly in the Medicare segment is that we're getting the majority of new patient starts, and that's really what's driving increased total market share from a patient perspective and that's really an important part of our strategy going forward. This momentum that we're carrying through '25 into '26. We want to make sure that we continue that into that critical time period of '27 and beyond.
So the way I would look at it is we're gaining the majority of new patient starts now, and we intend to continue doing that going forward.
We'll go next to Ash Verma with UBS.
I'm just trying to understand the medium-term growth outlook for INGREZZA given the sales force investment and the contracts that you've done. For the year, before IRA impact, do you believe that you can grow at a higher pace versus what you've guided to this year?
Yes. I guess the way that I would characterize that is that this year, the VMAT2 market is experiencing double-digit growth. And our brand is growing faster than the market. So we're really pleased with the growth trajectory that we're on. In fact, as we mentioned earlier, for Q3, that was -- that represented 12% year-over-year growth. So the goal is to continue and carry that forward into 2026 and beyond, and to maximize our patient share.
We'll be able to give more color as we get closer to our Q4 earnings call and talk about the projections for 2026. But at this point, it looks like we'll be able to see a continuing strong, robust growing market for VMAT2s and INGREZZA in particular, next year and beyond.
We'll go next to Ami Fadia with Needham.
It's on NBI-'770. Given that the study is not necessarily powered for statistical significance, just on an absolute basis, what is the level of change in the primary endpoint that you're looking to see as you think about some of the other drugs, such as [indiscernible] or rather psychedelics in the space?
And eventually, are you thinking of studying this in TRD or NDD? Just sort of current thoughts.
Yes, really good question. So yes, it's a relatively small study. So I'm hesitant to give an effect size that, frankly, we would be considered as successful versus not because I think there's a huge amount of unmet need in this population. As you mentioned, there are potentially 2 populations that we could target with 770. And one is adjunctive treatment in [ NDD ], which is currently where the program is headed. But we clearly could go down this [ Privata ] route with respect to TRD as well with this mechanism. So we have a couple of options. We will decide that, I think, based on the data that we'll receive later this quarter.
We'll go next to Sumant Kulkarni with Canaccord.
As the Inflation Reduction Act kicks in for your competitor, could you comment on where you might see the most impact on INGREZZA, either in terms of profile of patient or by prescriber type? And on the Neuropsych side specifically, what might be the maximum number of products that you might be able to leverage the situation of your expanded Neuropsych sales team?
Yes, let me take the second part of your question here. We'd love to have the challenge of having 3 products into psychiatry and long-term care at the same time. Obviously, we're really excited about the late-stage pipeline with both [indiscernible] and osavampator Phase III trials. And as Kyle said in his prepared remarks, data and potential launches later in the latter half of this decade. This expansion that we're in the midst of now, I think sets us up well for being able to move and launch with either of those 2 products or potentially both.
So I would say that it's not sufficient, meaning, for example, if we end up having the opportunity to launch osavampator we won't have the coverage of the primary care -- future primary care prescribers that we would need to reach. So this gets us partly the way there, but not fully. And so I do think it reduces the amount of changes that we would have to make to prepare for either of those 2 launches down the road.
In terms of impact from the IRA and the negotiation our view is that patients are existing patients are ultimately going to stay on therapy during this window of time. So you're thinking about a 2-year window when you're dealing with new patients and where do they go. So a lot of what we're doing right now is to maximize the number of patients on therapy between now and 2027. And we're going to control every single thing that we can to maximize that number, and we think we'll be successful during that window of time.
But we will learn more in terms of what the MFP is for [ Osteo ] as well as payer behavior over the coming months. But for what we can control, we're doing everything we can possible. We have a great market with a great medicine here.
And we'll go next to Yatin Suneja with Guggenheim.
One clarification, the 14-week dynamic or one extra week dynamic, that is just specific to INGREZZA? And then if you can just comment also on the inventory, if you can, for CRENESSITY.
Yes. CRENESSITY inventory build was about $7 million for the quarter. And then as it relates to the 14 week, that does pertain to INGREZZA primarily. And you can assume that was almost a full week of impact on the quarter. So when you want to normalize Q3 to think about trajectory into Q4. I think it's safe to assume remove the week and then you can grow off of that base from there.
And we'll go next to Myles Minter with William Blair.
This one's just on CRENESSITY new starts. I think in the second quarter, you had 664, you got 540 this quarter. Some sort of warehousing effect that's splitting out of those patients? Can we expect that sort of trajectory for the next quarter and maybe a return to growth when you get that sales force expansion hitting in the new year?
Yes. The way I would characterize the adoption in Q3 was a very consistent and steady. We said this would be a measured launch. And so far, it has played out that way. Although the overall rate of adoption, I think, since day 1 has been a little bit quicker than what we anticipated prior to the launch. We were helped out a little bit in Q2 by the wind down of the adult open-label study. And so there were some patients that transitioned towards the end of Q2 to commercial drug that bumped up numbers a little bit. But overall, I'd say that the rate of weekly enrollments has been pretty consistent across both Q2 and Q3.
Maybe I'll just add here quickly. The launch continues to exceed our expectations, and that's across the board, enrollment forms, persistence, compliance and that's played out here ultimately, as time moves along, the combination of the steady adoption of CRENESSITY as well as the [indiscernible] is going to stack volume over time and gives us all the confidence that we have a need for this to be our next blockbuster here.
We'll go next to Danielle Brill with Truist.
This is Alex on for Danielle. Another one on CRENESSITY. Just curious if you're seeing any new -- any shift in the new prescription breakdown between pediatrics and adult and additionally, any trends in the usage of the free drug program?
No major shifts from the demographic perspective. It still is skewing towards younger patients and primarily towards female patients. That pattern kind of kicked in after about a quarter or so on the market, and it's been pretty steady ever since. And then what was the second half of your question, I'm sorry?
[indiscernible]
Yes. It's actually continues to be less than what we had anticipated it would be. The idea being that if insurance hadn't approved the claim after about a week, that we would be able to offer a month supply of CRENESSITY to get someone started pretty quickly.
And as I mentioned earlier, 9 out of 10 patients that are on CRENESSITY have gotten their prescription approved to their insurance. And so not that many people end up on the free drug program, to be honest with you.
We'll go next to Laura Chico with Wedbush Securities.
One of the pipeline with respect to valbenazine and dyskinetic variable [indiscernible]. The data coming up here. Can you talk a little bit more about what will constitute a meaningful change in [indiscernible] score in a CP population? But also, I guess, against the backdrop of the INGREZZA field force expansion, how should we think about the size of the opportunity and overlap with existing INGREZZA prescribers?
Yes, I'll do the first question really quickly. I'm going to hand it on for the second. So this population is concept doesn't have a priory validated scale. So essentially, we're borrowing from the UHDRS, Huntington's scale. That's a total maximum career scale. Our assumption is that typically a significant effect in that would be meaningful enough. Clearly, we'll be seeing the totality of the data later this quarter.
And maybe this is [indiscernible], just to add to next steps on this. We would take a data set if it was robust to the agency and ensure that there's a path forward for an NDA submission and what's the current size and composition of the sales force, we would be covered there in case that was an [ sNDA ].
Last thing, I'll chime in here. The DCP population is larger than the Huntington [indiscernible] population, but still substantially smaller than the TD population and the expanded sales team, if this turned into an indication down the road would be able to cover all the potential prescribers.
We'll go next to David Hoang with Deutsche Bank.
So again, congrats on a strong quarter. I saw you have reiterated but not raised guidance. So I guess you mentioned the extra week in Q3 for ordering, but we think about the -- what the Q4 number may look like. I think the guide implies something to like down mid-single digits to flattish. Anything else to think about in there in terms of maybe whether you envision seasonal dynamics or perhaps there's some degree of embedded conservatism?
Yes. If you back out the 14th week, I think it gets you into a place to grow off of. And then sequentially, what you've seen over the last handful of years is the fourth quarter typically, we'll have a range of $15 million to $20 million of sequential growth. So my recommendation, David, is to normalized Q3 to a 13-week and then think about that type of a growth trajectory.
Price should be pretty consistent. It was down 6% to 7% year-over-year in the third quarter, that should be something that you would experience in Q4 as well. So nothing abnormal on the pricing side.
And our final question comes from Evan Seigerman with BMO Capital Markets.
In your 10-Q filed today, there was a disclosure about the Make America Healthy again commission issuing warning letters regarding DTC advertisements you indicated that you got one for INGREZZA. Can you talk about what was in that letter and what you might need to correct given that, that is pretty important when it comes to the commercial plan for that asset?
Yes, I'll take this question. This is Kyle. I think many of us in the industry received a similar letter with similar types of contents in there. I think what a good view to have on this as a pharma member is we're committed to conducting responsible advertising for us. It is an important part of our business. We think it's a good opportunity for us to reach patients and also educate out there. We'll continue to look at that as an opportunity. But rest assured, we continue to do this in a responsible way and we'll look to continue doing that moving forward.
And this does conclude today's question-and-answer session. I will now turn the call over to Kyle Gano for any additional or closing remarks.
Thank you, and thanks, everyone, for the good discussion and call this afternoon. Looking ahead, we are confident in the company's direction and momentum. We hope you can see here today that we're executing with clarity and discipline. Expanding 2 commercial franchises in INGREZZA and CRENESSITY, advancing a robust and growing pipeline. We talked about some of our mid- to late-stage assets today and investing in the next generation of innovation. This is what Neurocrine is about today and in the future.
It goes without saying we look forward to meeting with many of you at the upcoming and remaining conferences this year and certainly at our R&D Day on December 16. Thanks again.
This does conclude today's program. Thank you for your participation. You may disconnect at any time.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Q3 2025 Earnings Call
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — TD Cowen's 5th Annual Novel Mechanisms in Neuropsychiatry & Epilepsy Summit
1. Question Answer
Good afternoon, and welcome to TD Cowen's Neuropsych Summit. I'm Phil Nadeau, one of the biotech analysts here at TD Cowen, and it's my pleasure to moderate a fireside chat with Neurocrine Biosciences. We have with us today, Kyle Gano, the Chief Executive Officer; Sanjay Keswani, the Chief Medical Officer; and Todd Tushla, the VP of Investor Relations.
Guys, first, I thought we'd start with maybe a brief overview of Neurocrine's strategy for developing and commercializing drugs for neuropsychiatric conditions. In particular, maybe which indications is Neurocrine most interested in? And what types of targets will Neurocrine prioritize?
Thanks, Phil. I'll take that question, and thanks for having us here this morning. Always a pleasure to get together. Your question is actually timely, it's timely for a couple of reasons. One is, as you probably heard from us over the course of the past year, our intentions and being deliberate and really changing our view on R&D strategy. So that's point number one. Number two, we have an R&D Day coming up in December on the 16th, and you'll hear more about how that evolution is playing out 1 year in.
But coming back specifically to your question, the aspects that are new to our strategy are severalfold. One of them is if you look at the pipeline today, it's largely been in-licensed through business development, and that's something that will still be a big part of Neurocrine moving forward. But part of the intentionality aspect of it is to bring in the capabilities so we can actually discover programs internally more so than we have over the course of the past decade. And that's playing out now. We've had some success there this year, and that will be a bigger part of our story as we move on.
The other one that goes with that internal discovery progress, is moving away from looking at small molecules exclusively into other modalities, proteins, monoclonal antibodies and peptides. We just put our first peptide antagonist into the clinic earlier this year as a follow-on to CRENESSITY. And as we move on in the strategy, it's also having a focus on validated targets. So you touched on targets there that means for us clinically or genetically validated.
And if you put these pieces together, it does afford us to move away from or at least add to what we could bring to patients, not only treatments for symptoms, but also disease modification. And we're quite excited about these new areas that we're exploring. And ultimately, we can start talking about matching the right modality to the right target. And these are two things that if done right and appropriately, increases R&D productivity, which we've seen as well.
So at steady state at Neurocrine, we're hoping to be able to share and show the investment community that we can put more -- or start at least four new Phase I programs each year, two new Phase II programs and have, again, at steady study state at least three programs in Phase III development. And at the end of the day, this could afford, we believe, one new medicine on average every other year. So a lot of good things are going on here at Neurocrine. We're in the early innings but making good progress there.
I do want to address your question in terms of the areas that we're interested in. We do focus on neurology, psychiatry and endocrinology. These have been legacy therapeutic areas for us. And I also would add to that immunology. If you go back to my time here at Neurocrine dating back 25 years, we worked in all these areas. And one of the common threads to them all are targets within the CNS and brain. It's amazing the different diseases that you can work on given that focus.
In terms of diseases, it's probably easier to talk about the things that are difficult for us, things like stroke or traumatic brain injury where you're working with an end point that's not well validated, and you don't know if you've got a medicine until you completed your first Phase III study, also kind of longer to develop neurodegenerative diseases are also quite challenging.
If you look at what we're doing now, it's more diseases that give us confidence early in development, like Phase I biomarker opportunities or in smaller signal-seeking Phase II trials. These are the diseases that are of interest to us across the four therapeutic areas I mentioned. So really exciting time here at Neurocrine and really pleased with the progress that we've made. And I think we'll have a lot more to share about this progress, not only in December, but in the coming years.
On your latter point, CNS diseases are inherently higher risk and perhaps higher reward. How do you balance risk versus reward across the portfolio? What's an optimal balance in Neurocrine's opinion?
A couple of years ago, if you would have asked us this question, I would say that we're really trying to weigh the portfolio to being more in neurology, in endocrinology and immunology where our -- where there are biomarker possibilities. But science has a funny way of playing out. And what happened is our higher probability of success programs at least that we thought, didn't work out as planned and the psychiatry programs did. So today, we have a more weighted toward psychiatry portfolio, which is something that we're going to play out and lead into because we think we've got some good assets and good data there.
But I think moving forward, I think what you expect or would expect is probably re-weighting of the portfolio over time, maybe 40% to 50% neurology at steady state, 20% to 30% psychiatry, 10% to 20% endo and 10% to 20% immunology. This is a few years down the road, but you can see us shifting towards a higher probability therapeutic areas. So that's probably where I would point you to. And just know that those are ranges. Sometimes that science takes you into different areas.
That's perfect. Moving to some of the specific programs. We expect Phase II data by the end of the year from 770, the NMDA candidate, can you maybe start with discussing what the rationale is for using an NMDA NAM in major depressive disorder? And how could 770 be differentiated from other therapies for major depressive distorder?
Sanjay, do you want to take this one?
Yes, sure. So 770 is an NR2B NAM or negative allosteric modulator. So it really builds upon the hypotheses established by ketamine and specifically esketamine and obviously, we're really happy that SPRAVATO is doing quite well in the area of treatment-resistant depression. So here, what we're trying to do is essentially have efficacy at least similar to SPRAVATO i.e. ketamine, but maybe avoid some of the associated and cognitive side effects that one sees with ketamine.
And so the hypothesis rests on NR2B being extra-synaptic versus NR2A, which is synaptic and that may confer a differential safety profile while preserving efficacy. So that's essentially kind of the rationale behind 770.
In terms of the data that we'll see at the end of this year or towards the end of this year, can you remind us of the design of the Phase II study and what results would Neurocrine consider proof of concept that would justify further development of 770 and suggest to you that you're on the right path?
Yes. So I think the first thing is it's a relatively small signal-seeking study. I just want to make sure expectations are appropriate. So it's a 72-patient study, total, it's divided into three active arms plus placebo. We do have 1:1 weighting for active versus placebo because we have learned that having that equal randomization actually preserves a placebo response and minimizes a placebo response. We're looking at a change in MADRS score at day 5 in this study on the assumption that our efficacy will be really rapid in terms of onset. And as you mentioned, we'll be expecting these results later this year, in fact, in the October, November time frame.
What magnitude of change in MADRS is possible by day 5? That seems like an incredibly short period of time.
Well, SPRAVATO demonstrated about a 3 to 4-point change, that's placebo adjusted. So we're looking for that. So we think it's very possible.
And then what would be the next steps for 770 should the Phase II data be positive?
Yes. A lot of it relates to, obviously, the degree of efficacy and the safety profile we see. And we have a couple of options, I think. One is to go straight into registrational programs, if we're confident that we've got the right dose and dosing frequency. As I said, we have three different doses in our Phase II study, or if we need to establish more confidence in that dosing paradigm, we would move to maybe a larger Phase II. So we'll make that decision after we see the data later this year.
Great. Moving on to osavampator. In April of last year, Neurocrine showed positive Phase II data from the Phase II SAVITRI study, and we'll get more data this weekend. I guess maybe just set a background, can you give us a brief overview of the data that were disclosed in April of last year and maybe discuss what we expect to learn from this weekend's medical meeting presentation.
Yes. With respect to historical data, maybe Kyle should address that. But maybe I'd start by just, again, framing this compound. So we just talked about ketamine and NMDA. So osavampator is an AMPA potentiator, so actually the kind of the same mechanism of action really but downstream. So again, we think that will confer a differential safety efficacy profile.
We're really happy with the safe -- tolerability data we've seen. And this is a target -- AMPA specifically has been a target that industry has been trying to drug for a long time. One of the issues has been the therapeutic window. So we're actually really happy with the molecule we have which has no intrinsic agonistic activity, but is a real potentiator. And so we haven't seen some of the hurdles that prior compounds which have failed have seen, specifically seizures. So fingers crossed. We haven't seen that. We hope not to see that in larger studies.
But in terms of the historic disclosure, maybe I'll pass it to you.
Yes. So not a lot of data came out when we first half the Phase II trial, and that was done deliberately. We -- this is a program that came out of our operation with Takeda, was part of a profit share. And both organizations agreed that let's get to data and then we'll figure out next steps there. Well, the data was overwhelmingly positive. So we wanted to, first and foremost protect the data and memorialize that in the number of patents that were filed around that. So we wanted to keep the data close to the best there.
Also, we know that this target has been of high interest to companies over the years. And there's a number of compounds on the shelf that touch on this target and certainly didn't want to give them any heads up on potential trial designs or data that could inform or help accelerate those efforts. We've had a long history of doing that here at Neurocrine.
But the data itself, this is a study of about 185 subjects. We tested two doses of osavampator versus placebo. Both doses were active, and we picked one of those to move forward into the Phase III study as we design them now. And the dose that was the most effective really had some spectacular results at both day 28 and 56 and showed a continuing improvement in the MADRS and efficacy as time went along. But at the end of the treatment period, not only were the results statistically significant, but we saw effect size that ranged from about 0.55 to 0.75 going from day 28 to day 56, and that really puts you in a really quite rare air in terms of efficacy there at that one dose that looked really, really clean.
So that's the dose that we selected to move forward in Phase III. Safety and tolerability was quite good. The only thing that really separated from placebo was headache. And that really is quite a benign profile versus the other medicine that Sanjay already discussed, ketamine that works upstream at an NMDA receptor, very clean profile overall. So we're excited with what we have, and that's why we started all the Phase III trials with osavampator. They're all ongoing now. And the plan is looking at a high-level data in 2027. We'll be able to fine-tune that as we get further along the recruitment. But the data across both doses, greater visibility in the safety and tolerability will all be available at the data set we'll be sharing in psych congress here over the weekend.
So on the data this weekend, I think the most controversial part of the initial disclosure was that it wasn't disclosed which dose was the one that was statistically significant. So we will see data from both doses...
All will be known by Saturday evening.
That's great. Anything -- so I think investors will try to figure out how the doses compare and contrast. Anything else that we should be paying attention to as we look through the scientific presentation?
For me, Phil, I would just add, especially on the safety and tolerability of this class, when you look at some more detailed data on safety, there is really no substantial difference between both of the doses versus placebo, which is going to be important as we take this forward into Phase III. So you'll get some exposure response data that you'll see this continuing effect that Kyle talked about. But then when you layer in the safety and tolerability, you really have a compelling program here that's in Phase III studies now.
And I would add this approach that we have that really incorporates NBI-'770 to osavampator is consistent with our strategy of working in validated biological pathways. This was really defined by ketamine and the years earlier by PCP. They worked through the NMDA receptor and playing different targets along that pathway. And what we're seeing is potentially evolving view that working at the NMDA receptor can give you a fast onset of action or working downstream at the AMPA receptor directly could give you a big magnitude of effect, but really well tolerated and safe medicine as well. So we're playing both sides of this pathway. And I think that there's ample opportunity here and the different profiles will be able to benefit a wide range of patient types within MDD.
Well, that's another example of derisking, right, with attacking a disease with -- via different mechanisms.
On the -- sorry, go ahead.
Yes. I'm just going to add, just finally, so it's really intriguing data. Clearly, we'll be showing all this later this week. But I think what's interesting is that the efficacy seems to increase over time. And the hypothesis here is that we're actually remodeling synapses. This is secondary to BDNF and mTOR signaling. So if one looks at the efficacy data at day 56 versus day 28, it seems to get better over time, which, again, is interesting.
So we have the opportunity to look at maybe longer durations with our current Phase III program where we actually have both open-label safety, but we have a randomized withdrawal study, where we'll be dosing more chronically than our acute depression studies.
One of the questions we get on the Phase III trial design is why Neurocrine is looking at a 56-day MADRS in Phase III, whereas Phase II had 28-day primary endpoint. Is that because the efficacy increases over time, do you think the day 56 results will be more impressive, more competitive?
That's exactly right. So conventionally, week 8 or day 56 is the primary endpoint for antidepressants. So we were looking at earlier time points because we're wondering if this was going to be more ketamine like in terms of onset of efficacy. But essentially, we're happy that at least at the 1 milligram dose, we saw significant efficacy at both time points.
Great. And just two more questions before moving on to 568. First, in terms of the Phase III data, what do you think -- what does the profile need to be for osavampator to be competitive? What change in MADRS at day 56? What side effect profile do you think would position it to be a standard therapy?
Well, I think there's a lot of room in the MDD space, particularly for individuals who failed antidepressants. So there's a huge unmet need. Estimates in terms of remission rates vary, but we think that less than half individuals actually achieve true sustainable remission with the currently available antidepressants. So again, a huge unmet need.
I think a lot of it will relate to how good the safety profile is. So far, it looks great. So it could be used adjunctively to existing and antidepressants without conferring an initial burden in respect to side effects. Clearly, we've been looking at efficacy. Again, we're really bullish about the efficacy we saw. We saw actually a massive effect size of 0.73. It probably doesn't have to be as good as that, quite frankly, in the Phase III program to be a really worthwhile meaningful antidepressant. At earlier time points, I think the effect size was also at least 0.5. So these are big meaningful effect size, at least with respect to the MADRS scale.
Yes. I think there's such a low bar out there for antidepressants in general, whether you're looking at SSRIs or SNRIs. Typically, you look at effect sizes of 0.3 and above of being something that's clinically meaningful, and we're far above that in Phase II. And bottom line is if you can offer something that's safe and well tolerated with the efficacy and it's the only mechanism of that type out there, that's going to be something that people are really going to want to try.
That's perfect. Moving on to NBI-'568. In August of last year, you disclosed the data from the Phase II trial, evaluating it in the treatment of schizophrenia. For those less familiar, can you briefly summarize the highlights of those data?
Yes. So that was a Phase II trial, about 210 subjects consistent with what Sanjay described about 770. This was a smaller Phase II signal-seeking study. Each of the dose arms had 30 to 40 subjects, pretty small overall. And it was an ambitious study because we really had to catch up with a lot of other players in this space.
And we had three main objectives. One is to study this molecule, direclidine, for the first time in patients, see if we're leaving any efficacy on the table above the 20-milligram dose, which is our target dose, the one that we saw in Phase I, produce nice biomarker effect as well as perform preclinically and then pick a dose and dosing regimen for Phase III. And we're able to check all those boxes.
In our view, across all the doses, we've used 20 mgs, 40, 60 mgs once a day and then the 30 mg BID arm. All the doses worked similar to what we saw with osavampator. And even if you pool the doses together, we saw a [ static ] result on PANSS, which is the primary endpoint for the study. The dose that performed the best, both the 20-milligram once daily dose. And with that, we saw about an 18.2 improvement in the PANSS and that resulted in a placebo-corrected improvement of about 7.5 points with an effect size of 0.61.
So pretty robust results when you stack that up with another approved antipsychotics. Again, no food effect, no titration, no GI issues. The only thing that's separated from placebo on safety and tolerability was a little bit of dizziness and that's consistent with the mechanism. But nothing there that you would see by agonizing M2 and M3 in terms of those GI side effects and this result of the medicine that we're developing, being highly selective for M4.
So overall, a very robust data set. And not only did we hit on PANSS, but all the other scales that we had in the study, whether it was the CGI-S, the Marder Factor positive score, the Marder Factor negative score, all of them were positive at the 20-milligram dose and as early as week 2 and that continued throughout the course of the study. So that is the dose of strength and dosing regimen that we took into Phase III. And now we have both of our Phase III studies up and running.
Just as a quick reminder, it's one dose versus placebo, very much more simplified Phase III trial than our ambitious Phase II design in about 280 subjects. And again, replicate studies that are ongoing now, again, with data earmarked for 2027.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the data was the fact that the 20-milligram dose looked a bit better than the higher doses, at least in terms of PANSS score. Is there a mechanistic rationale for why patients on a lower dose would do better? Do you think the difference between the doses was rail? Or is it just within the noise of the measurement?
I think it's just part and parcel with the variability of the study given the small end across the different doses. And the other thing to keep in mind here, it's not something that I can quantify for you or anyone listening, but this was kind of an adaptive trial design in the sense that we started at the 20-milligram dose, and only after did we see good safety and tolerability that we go to that next study. We're really interested in preserving safety and tolerability on this mechanism as we believe this is a key differentiator for us.
But as you take that approach and you go to the next cohort, time has gone by. So it's not a parallel design. All the subjects aren't getting -- at different doses aren't getting their doses at the same time, and they're across different sites. So all those things aid into presenting greater variability than if you would have done a traditional 1:1 active to placebo parallel study design.
So that's probably more than anything else. We see the same transient increase in heart rate across all the different doses at a similar effect. But overall, our view of an irregular dose responses, we didn't expect it in the Phase II, but it's not surprising. We've seen this in our own other programs in years past. We've seen that on contemporary medicines like CAPLYTA and Vraylar in this space.
The bottom line at the end of the day, we don't think you could have had the outcome that we have on the 20-milligram dose by accident. It's a very robust data result. Again, similar data across all the sites on the 20-milligram dose and all the different efficacy parameters move in the same direction.
So we're excited about the data that we have. Obviously, science has to work for us in Phase III, but I think we have good reason to believe based on what we saw in Phase II that we'll have a good chance for success in Phase III.
Perhaps one of the most surprising developments in the muscarinic space over the last year was emraclidine's failure. Did Neurocrine learn anything from that? Is there anything from that failure that informed the development plan for 568?
Well, I guess I would say two things. A reminder that emraclidine works through a different mechanism than direclidine. So it's a positive allosteric modulator. It requires acetylcholine to drive efficacy. We don't have that obstacle, if you will, with direclidine because it directly activates M4 itself, doesn't need anything else to aid in that effort. So that's number one.
Number two, I think that it speaks to the benefit of this is a very simple well-controlled managed study. And we all appreciate that emraclidine's first study that got a lot of people excited about just M4 was a very small study. It was almost academic in size. There was about 75 to 80 subjects across 5 clinical sites. And then in their Phase III trial, they went from 5 sites to 25 sites, they went from 75 to 80 subjects to 350 subjects, U.S. only to U.S. and ex U.S., multiple CROs involved, and they are acquired. So all those things, you can still be successful, but they don't help in having a positive outcome there.
So in our Phase III study, we really want to make sure that we didn't pick up on the benefits of simplicity. And again, just 1:1 active to placebo parallel design for our Phase III trials that we're running with direclidine. So that's the plan, let's continue to manage and oversee the studies as we do at Neurocrine, and let's wait for the data in '27.
In terms of the Phase III data, what do you think 568 needs to produce in order to be competitive? What magnitude of PANSS change? And is it possible that 568 could compete simply on safety and tolerability and convenience even if the PANSS falls a little bit short of Cobenfy?
Well, certainly, the last aspects you mentioned are ones that we know we have out of the gate. Just the selectivity in the physical chemical properties of the molecule being once a day. These are all things that are ones that we think we have good reason to believe. The efficacy piece, obviously, you need to manage a trial, you need a science to work out. The last time we drew a line in the sand and shared where we thought we should be in terms of efficacy, we missed, and we paid the price on that. So I appreciate the question.
I will remind everyone listening in that Cobenfy in their Phase III trial, saw a total a placebo control PANSS improvement of about 10 to 12, somewhere in that range -- I'm sorry, that was 8 to 10. And if you look at some other antipsychotics in the space, like a CAPLYTA, it was in the 4 to 5 range. So there's a lot of variability in terms of placebo-corrected PANSS scores and success on those products. I would say CAPLYTA has been a great success out there and maybe not the most efficacious, at least on clinical outcomes.
I tend to look at for myself more on effect size because that level sets the different clinical data sets in terms of variability. We did see a nice effect size in Phase II, about 0.6. But I did -- I should call out that CAPLYTA, Vraylar and Rexulti, three medicines approved for schizophrenia have effect sizes around 0.3. And again, I would all put those in successful medicine categories out there.
So I think, ultimately, at the end of the day, we need to see a good effect size that's statistically significant, of course, and show good safety, tolerability. That once-a-day medicine is going to pay dividends in this patient population. We know that to be the case because of INGREZZA.
Yes. I may just to add to what Kyle mentioned. I'm saying tolerability is so important in terms of long-term compliance, particularly in this patient population. And just to add to the once daily, the no need for titration is a big deal, a much better GI profile. Indeed, we didn't really see any adverse events really, the GI system between active and placebo.
Another thing is food effect, so if Cobenfy has been given twice a day or 3 times a day, and you can't take it an hour before eating and 2 hours after eating, there are actually not many hours in the day to take that medicine. So just stuff like that is super important in terms of the compliance, particularly for chronic psychiatric diseases. So I just want to make sure that we just emphasize that.
There are a number of early-stage candidates we didn't discuss specifically, including other muscarinics, a couple of new VMAT2 inhibitors and the selective NAV 1.2, 1.6 inhibitor for epilepsy, which one of those would you like to highlight for investors, which should we start to dig into?
Well, obviously, given the success of INGREZZA, we would point you to the next-gen VMAT2 inhibitors. Those are the ones that we have great confidence in, we know the clinical pathway, we know what that looks like for programs at this stage and getting them through for tardive dyskinesia. The real -- the excitement comes here -- comes from knowing and appreciating that we believe we've dialed in the right properties to these molecules to offer not all those -- not only all the same things that are ones that we liked about INGREZZA but also a long-acting injectable option. So we think that will help drive compliance and perhaps greater efficacy by getting optimal exposure in patients over a longer period of time.
So these are the things that we're looking at building in and having be a part of our next-gen efforts. There's two molecules in Phase I right now. That's NBI-'890 and NBI-'675, and we'll look at taking those forward to a similar development point and picking the best one to move forward on that. And those are -- that particular program is one that should move through the clinical development space pretty rapidly given what we know.
Great. We're just about out of time, but one last question because this is a neuropsych day, we've focused our questions on your neuropsych programs. But obviously, the commercialization of INGREZZA and CRENESSITY are key topics for investors. Any update or comment on either of those you'd care to share as the third quarter approaches its end?
Well, obviously, we don't give forward-looking insights in the business, but I will say the company overall is firing in all cylinders. And if you look at enterprise-wide combining the revenue from CRENESSITY to -- with INGREZZA, we had $682 million in revenue in Q2, that's 17% year-to-year growth. On INGREZZA, we saw record back-to-back NRx quarters from Q1 to Q2. We saw a record TRx quarter in Q2 as well. Our market share increased in new-to-brand as well as TRx. We had this all happening 8 years in is pretty remarkable. I think it says a lot for the strength of our commercial team.
And then with CRENESSITY, adding $53 million on top of the $624 million for INGREZZA, really going down that path of changing the standard of care for patients, and that's all been aided by the great positive receptivity that we've had out there in the advocacy community as well as physicians. The company has never been stronger from a financial perspective, and I'm really liking what we're seeing from our R&D organization. So I think we're well on our way of becoming a leading neuroscience company. but it does start with INGREZZA and CRENESSITY to help us go down that path.
That's perfect. With that, I think we are out of time. So Kyle, Sanjay and Todd, thank you for joining us today. A very interesting discussion.
Thanks, Phil.
Thanks.
Take care.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Morgan Stanley 23rd Annual Global Healthcare Conference
1. Question Answer
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to Morgan Stanley's Global Healthcare Conference. I'm Sean Laaman, Head of U.S. mid-cap biotech equity research here at the firm.
Before we commence, for important disclosures, go to our research disclosure website at www.morganstanley.com/researchdisclosures. And if you have any questions, please reach out to your Morgan Stanley sales representative.
For this session, we have Neurocrine Biosciences, with CEO, Kyle Gano; and Chief Medical Officer; Sanjay Keswani. Welcome Kyle and Sanjay. Its a pleasure to host you both.
Thanks, Sean.
Maybe just to start, we've got some macro questions. And the first question is with China's rise in biotech innovation, how are you thinking about the competitive position here for Neurocrine? And does it influence your R&D and business development strategy?
No, I appreciate the question. From our view, the competitive advantage that I think we have at Neurocrine is that we're not blind to what's going on in China. And we do have regular conversations with companies in the region to learn about how they're thinking about drug discovery and drug development.
I think we all have to admit they do some great science over there, in particular, engineering and engineering at scale on validated biology. And we've seen some molecules come out of China that have been in-licensed by pharmaceutical companies at a very high premium because these molecules are quite good. So we want to understand that at a minimum, how they're doing that over there, and there are some things that we can learn about their approach to these types of molecules that they've been putting together.
I think the other side of the coin is that they haven't really been doing a lot of work in diseases of the CNS, the central nervous system. And so from our competitive advantage standpoint, we're still working in that space. We're not quite there yet. And if we're concerned, or worried about them having a leg up there, I think that we're doing quite well here in the United States. But still us going over there regularly, we're keeping a tab on companies that are working in this space. And if they do have something that's interesting, it's good for us to know that. And maybe there's something there for Neurocrine down the road, or again, just learning from them, and how they're tackling these types of issues that we're all facing in the drug development area.
Wonderful Kyle. With respect to AI, how is Neurocrine leveraging AI? And how do you think about AI's disruptive potential?
Right. So on AI, we're not an AI company. So when it comes to leveraging this technology in drug discovery, that's largely done through partnerships, and we do have a couple of those ongoing now on the side of -- try and identify new chemical scaffolds and structures that might be appropriate for us to invest in additional chemistry and moving those forward further in development. So there's a drug discovery component of that. We're not discovering those tools. We're not developing them. We're partnering with other companies to help us in that area.
The other side of AI that we are leveraging -- and when I say leveraging both for discovery and this other piece that I'll be mentioning, it's really very early innings for Neurocrine. This is not an area that's, again, that we've invested a lot of our dollars in since the beginning of our conversations about AI. So we're catching up a little bit.
But in the areas other than drug discovery, we also look to identify and utilize tools that allow us to do things more efficiently. If we have a team of clinicians that are required to come together to write a study report, that's not necessarily the best use of their skill sets. They're physicians, they can design trials. They can go out and meet with physicians and talk about future trials, the science that we're developing here at Neurocrine. I'd rather not them spend a lot of time writing a study report. So they can bring in the data to an algorithm that's part of an AI tool, and have the AI tool itself help develop that initial study report. And that saves our clinicians' time to do those things that they're most skilled at.
So these are the things that we're trying to do and adopt across the organization. Still early days, but I'm excited about what we're talking about at Neurocrine and leveraging these different aspects of the technology moving forward.
Yes. Wonderful Kyle. And final question before we delve into more detail on Neurocrine specifically. But what's been the most impactful for Neurocrine on the regulatory side? Is it MFN? Is it tariffs? Is it the FDA changes?
When it comes to the pieces that you bought up there, I think the overwhelming concern is just the uncertainty across all these, right? There's not really any policy that covers things like MFN, or tariffs, or these other issues that we've been facing from a regulatory standpoint yet today. So a lot of it is kind of early days. And our general response is -- because it is early days, we try to focus on those things that we can control in Neurocrine. To make the business as strong as we can, is resilient to anything that comes down the pipeline. And we think this is going to be beneficial for us, and our shareholders and patients down the road. But we'll keep a close eye on all these different things.
I will say just at a high level, among these three things, the piece that we didn't necessarily mention here the Inflation Reduction Act. That is one piece that is policy. And we do get a lot of questions on that because it does read on one of our products, INGREZZA, either directly or indirectly through our competition that's in the space as well.
So we did get a lot in that area on tariffs and on the FDA piece. Not a lot there to talk about for Neurocrine.
Okay. Wonderful. Maybe jump straight into it. So INGREZZA sales have been a clear area of investor focus as they should have been this year and the competitive dynamics with Teva and AUSTEDO. And then more recently, you lowered the top end of guidance by $50 million.
So you comment on what factors led to a revision? And how do you feel about sales are shaping up for this year?
So my view at a high level, the first half performance was really strong at Neurocrine. If we just take a couple of things to mention here. We had back-to-back record NRxs in Q1 and Q2. We saw a record TRx in Q2 as well. Overall, our revenue for the quarter in Q2 is $624 million. That represents 15% quarter-to-quarter growth, and 8% year-to-year growth.
This type of performance 8 years in doesn't happen by accident. It really is a function of strength of our commercial organization. The demand that's out there from the perspective of tardive dyskinesia. Only 10% of patients of 800,000 patients are on a VMAT2 inhibitor. So there's still a lot of interest for patients and physicians to get on INGREZZA for the treatment of the symptoms of tardive dyskinesia.
And the last piece I'd mention is improvements in our access. We started the year about 45% of all TD and HD Medicare beneficiaries. We're under our Covered Lives category for INGREZZA, and we expanded that from 45% to 70% moving into Q3 of this year. So when you think about the guidance, we did narrow it to $2.5 billion to $2.55 billion. But it really is a function of all those things that I mentioned. It's the cadence and pace of our NRxs throughout the course of the year. It's our TRxs in particular, compliance and persistence as 1 quarter moves to the next. It's our commercial investments, whether it's sales force initiatives across messaging, DTC and its improvements in access. And all these things played a role in that.
Bottom line, we're expecting double-digit volume growth this year. The market is very robust. It's going to set us up to close this year strong, and give us a lot of momentum for 2026.
Marvelous. You touched on the macro questions on the IRA piece. But could you comment generally on your expectations for INGREZZA entering price negations in 2027, potential implementation in 2029? And can you give us a flavor of maybe the price expectations, if you can Kyle?
So as we've all talked about the IRA, the Inflation Reduction Act, over the past couple of years, I think we can all agree that it's complicated. There's multiple moving parts. Whether you're talking about limitations and how quickly, or the magnitude you increase the price of your medicines, has got to attract the CPI, or the Part D redesign, or your price negotiation with HHS. So we'll focus on the last piece here now since that was the question.
One of the unique things about Neurocrine is that we qualified for the small biotech exemption, and we applied for that, and we do have that status. So that gives us a great deal of cover when it comes to our price negotiation, which does occur in 2027.
As it stands now, we'll enter 2027 with this idea that we'll be negotiating with HHS. But we do have a collar. We do have a band where we know that our price for INGREZZA will be discounted in the year 2029 ultimately. But that negotiation will result in a discount of about 25% to 34% discount off of our -- what they call the non-FAMP NRx, or dollars per prescription price.
The non-FAMP is an archaic definition that stands for the nonfederal average manufacturing price. It's a price of our prescription of INGREZZA in 2021, that's increased at the CPI from 2021 to 2026, and that number is the basis of the 25% to 34% discount that we'll have. And we'll get that percentage through the course of our negotiation in '27, and that will be the price that we ultimately observe in 2029.
So it's not a good thing for our industry, in my view. At least for us in the small biotech exemption, we know what our discount is going to be. It's not a draconian discount. It is that 25% to 34%. It does recognize benefits and inflation between 2021 and 2026. So we'll do our best in '27.
Sure. And what sort of competitive dynamics should we be thinking about with the other VMAT2 and the potential change in prices? How do you think that might play out?
Well, our competitor in the space is a company, Teva, and they actually go through their IRA moment, if you will, on negotiation this year for their price implementation in 2027. I think we'll acknowledge out of the gate, we don't have all the answers for our situation, or for any other company in our industry. But what we can point to is that the TD market is incredibly robust. I mentioned the double-digit volume growth that we expect this year. The 10% of patients, 800,000 patients on a VMAT2 inhibitor day, a long run rate for growth. So we start there.
Number two is that our business is pretty well steady all the way through 2026. The outlier here is our negotiation in '27, and what happens to our competitor in the space in '27. But our business into, and through, 2026 is pretty clear in our view.
And the last piece is for INGREZZA. Once patients get on INGREZZA, they tend to stay on INGREZZA. Having a movement disorder that reappears after you discontinued therapy is a great motivating tool. So a lot of patients that, again, are on INGREZZA stay on it for a long time, a long course of their treatment.
So what that means for us in 2027 is that we're really focusing on, and discussing, what happens to the new patient starts. And that's really where the market goes to in 2027 and beyond? How do you grow the patient population in terms of what medicine they choose, in this case, INGREZZA. And the couple of pieces that we look at there is that we'll continue to have those discussions with the plans, the PBMs the contract in 2027, to see if we can maintain our formulary status. That's one piece.
We would be a product, INGREZZA, that is not negotiated, and these plans when we receive a rebate from Neurocrine versus our competitor would not have that advantage any longer. But beyond that, and over our history, we've always worked through an exceptions process. We've been disadvantaged on formularies. We can work through this exceptions process to get patients on INGREZZA. We'll continue to do that.
And then lastly, in 2026, we're going to see what the environment looks like in terms of the first 10 medicines that were negotiated. We'll see how those companies that own those medicines react to that environment. And we'll also see, and perhaps more importantly, what the brands that are in the non-negotiated categories are also doing either from a PBM perspective, or just reimbursement in general.
So I like where we are through '26. Lets see what happens in '27. We know what the market dynamics are. But I'll go back again, and you'll probably hear me reiterate this. The TD market is incredibly robust. And there's a lot of runway here with INGREZZA. Our IP goes out to 2038. So we're going to be around for the long haul.
Sure. Sure. Thank you, Kyle. Good answer. Just thinking about volume in the neurology, psychiatry and the long-term channels. Can you talk a little bit about that and where you see the most opportunity, or the most growth?
The growth still is largely within psychiatry and it makes sense. I mean the prescribers that we're talking about here are those that are prescribing antipsychotics. And tardive dyskinesia is a movement disorder caused by the long-term use of antipsychotics.
We still see, for the foreseeable future, psychiatry being the most productive in terms of the number of TD patients under care. That's about 60%, and the remaining 40% is split equally among neurology and LTC.
Wonderful. Thank you. Switching gears to CRENESSITY. So it seems like the launch is going very, very nicely. Significantly beat consensus expectations, and certainly our number at Q2.
But any comments on impact of the Quick Start program. What percent of patients are currently on paid drug? And why is the launch going so well?
So one of the benefits that we had with CRENESSITY that we did not have with INGREZZA, our two medicines that we commercialize here in the U.S., is that we're able to do disease state education for CH in advance of CRENESSITY's launch in December of 2024. And that helped really lay the foundation with physicians that perhaps a new medicine was coming. It was all disease data education of course.
But what that meant for us is that we signaled the time of CRENESSITY's launch that we believe the most motivated patient segment was a pediatric one. You have the families taking care of these kids. The mothers and fathers, and they're very motivated to get a new medicine for their children. Also, the long-term benefits are greater the earlier start you start with CRENESSITY. So a lot of motivating reasons to have these pediatric patients start with CRENESSITY. It's exactly what we saw. We were trending exactly where we thought those numbers would be.
But I think the disease state education really helped us take up a lot of the adults that we didn't think we would have out of the gate. So a lot of the good success, early successes, are acquiring all those patients that were in the pediatric segment, but also a fair number of adult patients. It's still favors the pediatric side of the patient population. But that was a nice surprise.
The other piece is that our reimbursement rate for dispensed scripts is quite high. About 75%, 76%. And that number is a little bit higher than we thought out of the gate as well. Because it takes some time for the various plans to work through getting a medicine like this reimbursed, that's new for disease data rare disease. They come up to speed. They have to understand what CH is. And so far, the team has done very well getting those prescriptions reimbursed.
So if you look at the program that we have for patients, it really is a patient coming into the system. They are signed a care coordinator right out of the gate. If they're not seeing a prescription going down the path of getting reimbursed, a patient can be put into the Quick Start program. So they get a 30-day supply of CRENESSITY. And during that time frame, hopefully, they'll get the prescription reimbursed.
If they can't afford the medicine, they don't have insurance, or the insurance doesn't cover enough on the medicine. They can offer -- also be offered free goods, CRENESSITY at $0 through our patient assistance program. So it's really provided a nice foundation by which we can start our commercial offers. But so far the reimburse rate has been quite good.
Great. Great. And where do you expect the mix will settle between pediatrics and adults? My guess would be that the adult population is a larger data set. But maybe give us some insights or thoughts around that?
Well, for congenital adrenal hyperplasia in the U.S., we estimate the prevalence to be around 20,000. And the demographics of the age and gender represents what you would see in the general population as well. So to your point, about 2:1 adults, the pediatrics is what we see as the general size and composition of the population. In the near term, I would still expect to see the pediatric population be favored just because of the motivating factors and what they're trying to achieve for these kids. But over time, if you capture all the CH market, you're going to see a flip, or transition, to the adult patient population at some point.
Awesome. Thank you, Kyle. And can you comment more generally on your competitive position versus a potential drug from Crinetics coming up? And maybe sort of put the pros and cons of both?
Right. It's probably a little bit too early to comment on the competition as of yet. And it really is to be fair to the competition, trying to compare two different data sets that are quite disparate.
What I would say is that competition is not necessarily a bad thing, gives patients options. And if Neurocrine can be a party that helps shine the light on the disease state that really hasn't any had any medication for over 7 years. That's a good place for us to be. We did that with INGREZZA. Makes me feel quite satisfied leading a company that develops these first-in-class medicines.
I will say that if you look at CH, and it probably is something you can pull through other orphan diseases as well. Efficacy gets your foot in the door, but safety and tolerability won the day. And I really like the approach that we've taken with CRENESSITY, and able to recapture the HPA access by working at the CRF receptor in pituitary. Allows us to reduce and control ACTH, as well as downstream androgens. And then layering on top of that, the ability to reduce GC doses over time and bring down the burden of using high doses of GCs over time is something that's very -- we think is the right way to treat CH.
Awesome. Thank you. And you provide rationale for the Phase I study of 1435. And what's your goal for the program? And when might we hear more?
NBI-1435 is our long-acting injectable of a CRFR1 antagonist. So it's a next-generation medicine, if you will, to CRENESSITY. It's not CRENESSITY itself. It's a different molecule that we discovered and developed at Neurocrine.
A lot of times when you think about long-acting injectables, you think about improvements in compliance, or compliance being a driving force. And certainly, that's a variable here. But really, for me, it is the ability to achieve a steady-state maximal concentration over a period of time that will allow you to maximize the efficacy of antagonizing the CF receptor.
So I have a very high bar. I'm going to see improvements in efficacy over CRENESSITY, if we can. Of course, the compliance piece is there for people that have difficulty taking multiple oral medications on a daily basis. But we're just starting off this study. And I think it's something as we get further along in the year, we'll know and we'll have some data, and we'll share with you when it becomes available.
Great. Great. Maybe a bit of advertising for you here, but you've got the R&D Day in San Diego in December 16, I believe it is. Can you give us a feel for what we should expect?
Maybe I'll let Sanjay share his thoughts.
Sure. So R&D Day on December 16, and has two major components. The first is a focus on the neuropsychiatry portfolio. As you know, you have two Phase III programs, osavampator as well as 568 which we now call Direclidine, which I think is actually kind of a cool name.
And then we have a pretty large muscarinic portfolio behind Direclidine as well. So we're speaking about those programs, a lot of indications potentially in play in AD psychosis. Something that is very interesting to us. You're going to be watching [indiscernible] efforts then very closely, but many other indications bipolar mania, bipolar depression, et cetera, et cetera. So we'll unveil kind of our strategy with respect to our muscarinics as well as [indiscernible].
And then the second major component is really showcasing our early phase portfolio. So as you know, and I think Jude Onyia has discussed this before, who's our Chief Scientific Officer, we have a whole slew of large molecules coming into our portfolio. We just talked about 1435 which is our molecule for CAH, but there's lots of stuff behind that. And so we'll be talking about that as well.
And then lastly, going to San Diego in December is not a bad thing. It's a beautiful campus. So yes, what's not to like?
It is. I have been there before. San Diego, any campus. But Sanjay, how do you think about the differences between M4 selective, and M1/M4 dual selective?
Yes. So I mean, traditionally, and this is certainly, I think, still our current view. We regard M4 as being really important in terms of psychotic or antipsychotic activity. While M1 agonism could be very helpful from a cognitive point of view. But we do have the opportunity to really probe and titrate how much M1 and how much M4 we want. Because we have a whole bunch of molecules, which again, we'll talk about R&D Day.
So we have M4 preferring molecules. We have M1 preferred molecules. We have an M1 and M4 dual agonist as well. And so it does allow us to play in a number of different indications. The more M1 preferring could be more suitable for cognition, for example, cognitive impairment associated with Alzheimer's disease, or Lewy body disease. And clearly, there's lots to play in this psychotic space with respect to the M4, as respect of bipolar mania, as well as schizophrenia.
Sure. Thank you. And just to clarify, so the M4 agonist is 568 for bipolar disorder? Provide some more rationale and we see potential for a muscarinic outside of schizophrenia?
Yes. So well, bipolar mania is a really important indication. In fact, we're starting a Phase II study this year with direct lead on 568. The sense is that actually translates well schizophrenia to bipolar mania if you look at antipsychotic space. There have been many successful translations.
Also from a preclinical point of view, we do have compelling data in an amphetamine-induced hyperactivity model, which is the model people use for bipolar mania. So we're quite bullish on efficacy and bipolar mania.
Wonderful. Moving on to the MDD pipeline. But looking at the history and success with the NDA agonist ketamine, with Spravato and then you've got 845 and 770, the program. So we have potential for meaningful commercial opportunity. So you can help us compare and contrast between NDA and AMPA for major depression?
Maybe I'll start, and Sanjay, please chime in if I miss anything. But I think this is a good reminder on this particular question. Just to share with you in difficult disease states like MDD, our approach at Neurocrine is that we like to approach it and looking at a biological pathway that's been validated. And for us, that starts with the ketamine pathway, or PCP pathway, that starts with the antagonism of the NMDA receptor.
So at a high level, just to map out where we are playing here. If you look at looking at the top of the pathway, NMDA receptor, and something like ketamine, what it does is it antagonizes the NMDA receptor and increases glutamate GABAergic inhibitory neurons. It does so in a way that there's a super GABAergic state that is invokes. And it causes glutamate to push through the entirety of the neuron. It gives a rapid response. And that's one of the benefits of ketamine is that you get this quick onset of action and relief of your symptoms.
But it also is associated with a lot of disassociated effects, as well as the other consequences in safety and tolerability issues that required to be administered in the hospital setting. So what is our approach to this?
Well, if you want to think about osavampator first and foremost, it works downstream with the NDMA receptor. It does not overactivate the neuron in terms of glutamate. It uses the glutamade that's proximal to the channel. And acts just as we've talked about with positive allosteric modulators over time by opening the channel and allowing glutamate to flow through the system and activate it that way. That is a nice kind of soft touch approach for the treating of the symptoms of MDD.
The trade-off there is it's not a fast acting option. It's more of a traditional 4- to 6- to 8-week type of approach to get to maximal efficacy. And that's what we demonstrated in our first Phase II trial, what we're looking at for a Phase III study. Very good safety and tolerability. Very strong efficacy in terms of the MADRS scores as our primary endpoint. But not a fast onset of action.
On the other hand, 770 is our NMDA NR2B NIM. It works at a subunit of the MDA receptor. And the thought and hypothesis that we have and others over time, is that while it invokes a super GABAergic state, it's transient and not to the same extent as ketamine. So we will get a fast onset of action. That's what we're anticipating. That's we've designed in our Phase II trial. But hopefully, without all the side effects and tolerability issues that we see with ketamine itself. So for 770, again, our NR2B NIM, we're looking at the MADRS as the primary endpoint at day 5. For osavampator, we're looking at the MADRS but at day 56. Different approaches within a validated biological pathway.
Very, very interesting topic. How is the 845 trial proceeding? And is there any sort of way we can catch the expected Phase II top line data for 770 expected in December, I believe?
Yes, it's 845 osavampator is doing really well from a recruitment point of view. So we've actually initiated all 3 Phase III studies. So these are 8 week studies in depression. And we're expecting the top line data in 2027.
With respect to the 770, or the NR2B NIM program, the Phase II data is expected Q4 of this year. In fact, you will be looking at that data very soon.
Wonderful. Just being sort of conscious of time, I want to get to some financial questions. But several other programs in your pipeline, but touch on at least one more M4 986. So unlike other muscarinic antipsychotics, this is an M4 block. Can you briefly touch on the M4 blockade and its potential for treating movement disorders. And if you could touch on the history with Artane as having derisked the target?
Yes. It's interesting one. This is actually a homegrown molecule, 986. So Artane or trihexyphenidyl, I think about it, right, is basically a muscarinic agonist that's been traditionally used for many, many years, for decades in the neurology space, primarily in Parkinson's tremor, but also dystonia. The problem with it are side effects, which relate to cognition, dizziness, confusion. And so if we had essentially a better Artane, which is more tolerable, we think it could be a winner.
That's essentially 986. We believe that Artane's efficacy is actually due to M4 blockade. And so we have a specific M4 blocker that's 986. So we'll be looking to start a Phase II study in the next year or so in either PD tremor or dystonia.
Yes, it's very much the opposite of the muscarinic agonist story. The muscarinics will suffer from the same, whether you're looking at antagonist or agonists, they suffer from the same challenge and that selectivity. So you can get pan muscarinic antagonist the key is getting selective ones. And it just so happens that if you look at our agonist, or antagonist portfolio, we've got that built into the molecules, which is the real positive here.
Sure. Marvelous. Just taking a step back and looking at the investment case. So I sort of covered your stock for not that long now, and sort of been in American for 1 year, or pretend American for 1 year. But it's sort of coming and looking with a fresh set of eyes and you've got two marketed products, which are both growing sort of very nicely. You've got a fairly rich pipeline and looking at consensus that doesn't seem that there's a lot factored into your pipeline. The stock was mild at around $100 for a while, and it's -- I think most people think it's worth in that $160 to $200 bracket, you're some way there.
But just stepping back, you've got that top line growth, and it seems that you're just trying to get the modeling of the OpEx right. It seems that you're going to be generating quite a lot of cash. I'm just wondering is that the case? Or do you think you've got to get that cash to get some of those R&D programs across the line? Or is it going to be a story of good top line, improving profitability, and then you've got a very rich pipeline on top of that?
Right. It's a very fair question. In my view, where we are standing here today as a company, we're firing on all cylinders, and that goes with what we're doing commercially and across the R&D portfolio.
But my North Star at Neurocrine is to look at those investments that continues down that path of a high-growth company. So revenue growth, revenue diversification and showing you all that we have a sustainable pipeline. And that's -- those three pieces, I think, are ones that every company should aspire for, and that gives you great long-term success. And we have bits and pieces of all of those that I can point to that gives you some comfort that we're moving in the right direction there, but I don't feel comfortable that we're there across all those variables quite yet.
So we are a fully integrated company. We are a profitable organization. But in the near term, we're not looking to direct our investments to maximize profit. We're investing in growth right now to help us down those different variables of a high-growth company.
On the commercial side of the business, it really is driving and maximizing the investment and opportunity value for INGREZZA and CRENESSITY. And I spoke to both our Q2 revenue number for INGREZZA, $624 million. Also the guidance this year, we talked on $2.5 billion to $2.55 billion.
On an enterprise-wise perspective, if we look at CRENESSITY coming into the mix, the $682 million in revenue for Q2. That's 17% year-to-year growth. Those are the things I'd like us all to be starting to get familiar with Neurocrine. It's not just an INGREZZA story. It's a CRENESSITY story moving forward.
Over the past couple of years, we have shown leverage on our commercial expense line of the business still. I think it is important to point that out. As the products mature, as our investments play out as they have done over time, we have shown 1,000 basis points improvement in leverage. We would expect that to continue as we move through the launch of CRENESSITY. So we can get leverage from our investments in our products, and our commercialization efforts, and those also grow the top line. So those are both working for us.
On the R&D side of the equation. We usually look to invest about 35% of net sales into R&D, and that's kind of where we are this year. That number may be slightly higher or slightly lower, depending on the quality of the assets. But to give you all kind of a nice benchmark for our directly named Phase III trials, these are inpatient studies. 280 subjects each approximately. These are $75 million to $100 million of Phase III studies, and there are two of them that we're doing at a placebo controlled.
So there is a time right now where we're having multiple registrational studies that are up and running, and there's a high spend there. We're still going to meet that kind of benchmark of about 35%. But in a couple of years down the road, those Phase III programs will be gone. And our pipeline will be earlier stage. So they could be a little bit lower than that 35% number.
So all these things are playing into our calculus here. But right now, I really like what we've created at the company and our prospects here over the near term, and we are looking to continue to invest in growth.
Wonderful great answer, Kyle. Do you feel like you've got the R&D pipeline right sized at the moment, like we shouldn't be thinking about other business development opportunities necessarily outside the scope of what Neurocrine currently has?
That's a fair question. I think if you look at the portfolio today, you'll see that there are great -- there has been a great deal of reliance on external collaborations that we've struck over the years. Moving forward, you're going to see a right mix of internally discovered programs as well.
Right now, related to the BD question specifically, I don't see a great need for us to bring something in from the outside. If anything, our research team is over delivering on what our goals were from several years ago in terms of having a certain number of programs in clinical development. Just this year, we've already started 3 new Phase I programs, and we have a line of sight to a couple others this year.
Our goal, I think I mentioned this at prior meetings, the productivity of our R&D team will be as such that we'll deliver at least 4 new Phase I starts per year, 2 new Phase II starts per year. And in any given time, we'll have 3 Phase III programs. And that will allow us to talk about having a portfolio that will deliver a product. A new product every other year.
So that's where we're headed, and that will be largely driven by our internal efforts moving forward, and we'll be able to selectively drop in things from the outside when needed.
Wonderful. In the interest of time, one final question and that is -- did I not ask something that I should have?
We didn't talk about our next-gen VMAT2 program. So perhaps we can [indiscernible] that in some of our side discussions with you all. But look forward to that discussion. And thank you once again for having us here today.
Thank you, Kyle. Thank you, Sanjay. Greatly appreciate it.
Thanks, everyone.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. — Cantor Global Healthcare Conference 2025
1. Question Answer
Now we're ready to get started. All right. Welcome, everyone. I'm Josh Schimmer from the Cantor biotech equity research team. Pleased to introduce the management team from Neurocrine Biosciences. We have Matt Abernethy, Chief Financial Officer; Todd Tushla, VP of IR; and Eric Benevich, Chief Commercial Officer, should be joining in just a moment.
But a lot going on at Neurocrine, Matt, can you give us a quick snapshot of the highlights of 2025 that we've passed or are yet to come.
Well, thanks, Josh, and we will be making forward-looking statements, so I'll get that out there. Yes, happy to be here. A lot going on for Neurocrine. And hopefully, this is Eric. We have an open chair here.
A lot going on for Neurocrine. INGREZZA is going quite well, $2.5 billion in sales is what we expect this year. In addition, CRENESSITY, what about CRENESSITY, Josh? That's just been an incredible launch so far. First new medicine in over 70 years for patients with congenital adrenal hyperplasia and that launch has got off to a really strong start so far.
In addition, which goes a little bit under the radar is that we have two major Phase III programs that we've initiated. The first one is in -- for osavampator, major depressive disorder, three Phase III studies ongoing as well as an open-label extension. And then we also have the muscarinic program where we have a schizophrenia trial ongoing and plan to initiate one in bipolar mania later this year. Those trials right now or those programs are off to a strong start. It's a little early to give an update on overall enrollment and where we expect. But I'd just say that so far, the teams have done an incredible job in kudos to Jaz Singh and Samir Siddhanti for getting those both up and running.
So momentum is a real thing. You can feel it inside of a company. we're busier than we ever have been focusing on the expansion of the sales force with INGREZZA, the contracting that we've had going on, launching of CRENESSITY as well as standing up these trials. So momentum is very good and it's strong and on our side.
So the two pieces of feedback coming out of the second quarter call, which I'm sure Josh will spend a bit of time on here during the session. The first part of the dialogue with an investor is typically wow, CRENESSITY is off to a strong start. And it's a pretty easy response, agreed, both on the enrollment form side as well as on the reimbursement side. It's been very nice to be a part of. The second line of questioning really comes down to INGREZZA and some of the contracting that we've entered into, the reasoning behind that and how that ultimately plays into AUSTEDO's negotiation that they have ongoing with the government.
So that's really the line of questioning. We're in a unique position, and I'll leave you with this: Two major medicines growing quite nicely, a Phase III trials that are up and running and a strong financial position where we have a lot of flexibility for the years ahead.
So Josh, I'll hand it back to you for some questions. And maybe for those who weren't at the dinner last night, we spent about 2 hours, and it was a really rich dinner. What -- any main takeaways for you or any areas you think we should...
Yes, a lot to cover and probably too much for the short time here. But Eric, you walked us through the evolution of the contracting strategy for INGREZZA and then some of the nuances as we get into kind of the IRA decision for AUSTEDO. Maybe you can kind of give us that snapshot again because it was just incredibly helpful.
Sure. Yes. So with INGREZZA, we're in year 8 of the launch. And as Matt said, it's been a remarkable journey, and we're still experiencing double-digit growth for the brand. But we launched in 2017. And our approach has always been to contract selectively and to seek parity from an access perspective. Whether that was a parity on formulary or parity in some cases, non-formulary.
And actually, for the first few years of the launch, we didn't contract at all. It wasn't really until 2019 that we started to engage in contract selectively. And what we found really starting last year, especially in the second half of 2024, was that being on formulary mattered more. We saw that being non-formulary was having a bigger impact in terms of affecting patient starts, and that payers were tightening up a little bit in terms of approving new patient starts and also reauthorizations for existing patients. And so we made the decision last year that we wanted to increase our formulary coverage in the Medicare segment.
So there's a defined cycle for the Medicare formularies, companies submit their bids towards the end of the year, typically in November or early December. And about 10 months later, normally, they find out whether they were added to the formularies. And so late '24, we submitted our bids for the 2026 formulary year. And with the goal of increasing our coverage from less than half of the Medicare TD market to somewhere north of that number. And what we found was that there were a couple of plans that -- where we were non-formulary, that came back to us after our bids were submitted and essentially saying, yes, we're open to adding you for 2026, but we're also open to accelerating that formulary addition into 2025.
And so we were able to pull forward a major plan into 2025. And that implemented in April. So beginning of April, beginning of Q2, we bumped up our coverage from less than half to about 2/3 of the Medicare market for TD. And then again, there was a few plans that added us at the beginning of Q3. And so now we're north of 70% of the TD market in Medicare, where we have coverage.
And we have seen that this has started to benefit us in terms of reducing the friction associated with getting new patients started. Certainly, we've been pleased with the volume growth. Q1 was a record quarter for us from a new patient start perspective, which is unusual. Typically, you don't see Q1 being a strong quarter for new patient starts because of all the reauthorization work you're doing. And then we saw Q2 was also a record quarter from a new patient start perspective.
So I do think that the contracting work that we did to increase our coverage in Medicare has benefited us, although it's still early days yet. With one plan kicking in, in Q2 and then a few more in Q3, we should continue to see the benefit of that in the second half of the year and into 2026.
So the net price impact from that decision was about 5% down for the year. But for us, it was a pretty easy trade-off to make to be able to accelerate getting patients on to therapy as quickly as possible.
And one piece just to clarify because it's been a pretty common question for us is what about 2026? In all of these contracts that Eric is -- are referring to, those are fixed contracts that take us through 2026. So I feel like we're pretty well positioned through the rest of this year as well as through 2026.
Josh, can I ask [indiscernible] why after 8 years did it start to matter whether or not [indiscernible]
Yes, I think that -- so the question was 8 years into the launch, what does it matter now more than previously.
Our sense is that payers are starting to manage specialty drugs more tightly than maybe they have in previous years. And I'm talking specifically about the Medicare segment, likely and sort of an outcome of the inflation Reduction Act. And so I think everyone is aware that starting in 2025, payers have picked up a greater proportion of drug costs after patients move through the catastrophic phase.
So they're on the hook for 60% and manufacturers are on the hook for 20% of the cost. And we saw some tightening up, as I said, of approvals in the second half of last year as well as some plans that were changing their coverage criteria over the course of the year. Net-net, it was getting a little bit harder to get new patients initiated. And so we felt like it was a worthwhile investment to increase our coverage and to reduce the headwinds associated with new patient starts, and it's translated so far into record new patient starts this year.
But I want to say that our observation is not just in the VMAT2 market, but in general, with specialty drugs that things have gotten a little bit tighter in terms of coverage criteria and approvals sort of across the board in the Medicare business segment.
Anything we could do to take the sand out of the gears in this environment was something that was quite clear for us once we saw those -- that sand getting added in, in a more pronounced way and the friction to -- for a prescriber, for example, to go through a coverage determination form process is much more difficult. And so for us, we're obviously wanting a new patient to go through the process as smooth as possible. But you also want the halo effect of a clinician when they think about the choice between INGREZZA and deuterated tetrabenazine that ease of access isn't going to be a trade-off decision that they make.
How do we now incorporate the IRA and AUSTEDO, in particular, because this is now a multidimensional almost game of chess with all of these payers thinking about, first of all, as you're submitting bids ahead of the IRA final outcome, as you negotiate through it, as you're thinking about your installed group of patients, as you're thinking about new groups of patients that you may be considering, like how do you think about navigating these next months of contracting negotiations?
Yes. So I think everyone is aware that our competitor at Teva is currently negotiating with CMS for their MFN price, which would be implemented in 2027. We don't know exactly when those wave 2 of drug negotiation prices are going to be announced, it would be no later than the end of November, possibly earlier. But as you said, we are in the position of possibly having to submit our bids for 2027 Medicare formularies before we have any insight into the negotiation status of deuterated tetrabenazine.
So ultimately, I think that we'd be speculating if we said that we had a good understanding of what the negotiated price is going to be. But ultimately, our strategy remains the same, we want to maximize access for the patients, we want to maximize patient share, which we have been doing so far, historically and especially this year. And certainly, we also want to make sure that we diversify our revenues. And so we see a long runway of growth potential for INGREZZA with exclusivity out to 2038. A lot of undiagnosed, untreated patients in the TD market. And then now certainly, with a second growth driver with CRENESSITY, having diversified revenue for the company, that's why we feel really good about where we are.
But it is multidimensional. And it's like game theory plus Prisoner's Dilemma all added together. And so we, of course, have a lot of different scenarios that we have mapped out, but all scenarios lead back to a few pieces. One is it benefits us significantly to get as many patients on therapy as possible. The second is what you alluded to, it has been very clearly seen over the last 8 years that existing patients on whether it's our product or deuterated tetrabenazine, plans have not been able to shift patients on to different medicines because of the underlying mental health condition of the patient, they're handled with a lot of care.
So we do have confidence in the market, confidence in our product, confidence in some of these other dynamics. But we'll find out more here in November, and we'll continue to pivot as needed.
Is -- do you look at the final outcome for AUSTEDO as essentially defining the eventual outcome for INGREZZA [ because you're ] not that many years behind. Another important consideration, right, that this price differential may just be temporary anyways.
So in the IRA, we qualified for the small biotech exemption. So in terms of what could our ultimate MFP be, there's actually a collar in terms of the range of potential discount that we might receive, and that range is between 25% and 34%. So we know our outcome to a certain extent in terms of what our MFP will likely be, we'd be selected in 2027, that price would become known at the end of 2027. And then it would be in place in 2029. But in between what gets announced in November and how things go between now and 2027 through 2029, I think that's the window of uncertainty that we're juggling and -- but Eric and team, I think, are doing a great job through this.
Is that the range for '29 beyond? Or I thought it changed in 2030?
It's pretty fixed in '29 to '34. There was one time, Josh, when it was presumed that there was going to be this sort of phase in of what that negotiated price is, it looks like that negotiated price will be in effect immediately. However, there are some offsets like the statutory rebate goes away and you're guaranteed to be on all plans.
So it is a multidimensional game of chess going on and hard to get your head around INGREZZA, thinking about IRA. But if you just take a step back and think about a $2.5 billion medicine with a market where you have 9 out of 10 patients with tardive dyskinesia not being treated today, there's still a massive opportunity left to help many more patients with TD. But on the flip side, we're also very thankful to have CRENESSITY and to also have our pipeline advancing, the way that it is.
One last question on this because I want to make sure we get to CRENESSITY. Just to make sure I'm understanding, once you're through the IRA yourselves, does that mean you've got 100% formulary coverage?
Yes, that's our understanding. And so just to kind of build on Matt's comment, we have a good degree of certainty for next year in terms of what our net pricing is going to look like and what our coverage looks like across all three segments, across Medicare, Medicaid and commercial. It's when you get to '27, where you do have a little bit of uncertainty around what that outcome looks like for our competitor, and then how that potentially impacts INGREZZA. There's 15 drugs that are getting negotiated right now. And so this type of question is being asked really across all of those 15 categories. What happens with those medicines and then what happens relative to coverage of the adjacent branded products in those categories.
So we're not alone in this regard. But you got about a 2-year window where deuterated tetrabenazine has a negotiated price. And then in '29, we expect that we'll have a negotiated price implemented. And based on the regs, once you have an MFP negotiated price, you're supposed to be on all formularies of Medicare. That's the trade -- part of the trade-off.
Yes. There are a lot of nuances maybe to unpack, another time, but I do -- because it gets really interesting.
Coming to CRENESSITY though. We had a great discussion about the different kind of centers that you're targeting, the centers of excellence, the endo peds, the endo adults and kind of the rapidity of which you can tap into these unmet needs. Maybe kind of frame that for us, the proportion, the numbers of each and the progress you're making across those domains.
Yes. I'll kind of walk you through sort of the nuts and bolts of the market for CRENESSITY, but I'll start off by saying that it's exceeded our expectations really from day 1. We are very thankful that we had such strong data coming out of the pivotal trials in adults and pediatric patients. That translated into a really great label that we got in December of last year, especially in terms of having a broad indication for the treatment of classic CAH. We were planning for success, and we put teams in the field in the second half of last year, commercial and medical teams to start preparing the market and to do disease state education and patient finding work that we think has really benefited us to be able to get off to a fast start once we did get approval in late December.
So ultimately, the way that we're looking at the market is that there's around 20,000 or so classic CAH patients in the U.S. we estimate. And this is ranging from infants all the way through to adults. They're under the care, most of them are under the care of endocrinologists.
And there's sort of three segments of endocrinologists that we're focused on. The pediatric endocrinologists care for that pediatric population, which is about 1/3 of the overall CAH population. These are around 1,100 of those out there. They tend to be more skilled in the art and comfortable managing CAH. They have more experience and typically, they have patients currently with CAH.
There's around 20 centers of excellence that are outpatient clinics that are affiliated with teaching hospitals, generally, about half of them are accredited through the CARES Foundation, which is the patient advocacy group for CAH. And those COEs, we believe, manage about 15% or so of the overall CAH population.
And then the balance of patients, the majority of patients are cared for through adult outpatient endocrinology practices. And so there's around 7,000 or so of those physicians out there. And that's where you see a lower concentration of patients. Many of these adult endocrinologists don't have classic CAH patients in their practice or if they do, they might have 1 or 2.
And so in terms of how we've been segmenting the market and going after the opportunity, obviously, focusing on the pediatric endocrinologists and the COEs, but we've also been educating and reaching out to those physician practices where it appears -- in the community where it appears they have CAH patients.
And so early on, first of all, the overall adoption has been more rapid than what we expected in the first quarter or 2. And especially, I would say, more referrals for treatment of adult patients coming from these outpatient endocrinology practices. So I would say that the adoption amongst pediatric patients by those ped endos and the referrals from those centers of excellence have been in line with our expectations and the referrals from the community endocrinologists have maybe been a little bit ahead of what we expected.
Ultimately, early on, the dynamic was about an equal number of adult patients being referred in relative to pediatric patients. As we moved further through the launch, now 2 quarters plus in, we've seen it start to skew towards the younger patients and also more towards female patients, which is in line with what we have expected. So we're ahead of where we plan to be at this stage, but the referrals each week have been very steady and consistent, and that's a good thing.
And so you've defined the market as your estimate of the classic CAH patient population. Maybe talk a little bit about that dynamic between non-classic and classic and the potential to move into that non-classic setting and identify patients who would be suitable for CRENESSITY.
Yes. So I just want to clarify, first of all, the indication is for classic CAH. And we have to be careful that we're promoting on label. But I think what you're getting at here is some physicians have a little bit of uncertainty around what's the boundary between classic and non-classic CAH. And part of what creates a little bit of a challenge from a patient finding perspective is that there is no specific ICD-10 code for classic CAH. There's just a CAH code. And for every classic patient, there's 3 or 4 non-classic patients.
And so you can think of CAH as sort of a spectrum disorder, on the one extreme with the most severe patients, essentially, they have 0 enzyme activity, and they produce 0 cortisol. On the other end of the spectrum, with milder forms, the non-classic form, they may have some enzyme activity, and they may be able to produce some cortisol. Typically, those patients still take exogenous glucocorticoids but maybe not at the kind of doses needed to suppress excess ACTH and androgen production.
And so you've got sort of this range of enzyme activity and this range of cortisol production. And it's helping the providers understand sort of what constitutes classic. And certainly, everyone is able to appreciate if someone has CAH and they're a salt-wasting CAH patient, essentially, they're not producing any cortisol, in their mind's eye, that's a classic CAH patient for sure. But we also enrolled patients that were not salt-wasting that were simple-virilizing patients that also had all the hallmarks in terms of not -- needing GC doses not just to replace the missing cortisol, but superphysiologic doses needed to suppress excess ACTH and androgen production.
And so that's part of our educational effort, is to help the physicians sort of appreciate what constitutes classic versus non-classic. Who is eligible to be treated per label and who it doesn't necessarily going to benefit from treatment. I think that this is a process that's going to be ongoing for a while.
Maybe a couple -- it's more anecdotal comments, but this has been fun so far. In biotech, it gets hard. You have a lot of failure, you have the contracting like we discussed for the first 10 minutes of this discussion. But to think about initiating a therapy for patients who have never had anything else other than taking very high-dose steroids for their life, this has been extremely rewarding what we hear from patients, what we hear from clinicians. It is -- we've -- it's been quite fortunate.
And Eric, being a commercial guy for the last 25, 30 years, he says, I'm just waiting for the shoe to drop. The anecdotal feedback seems to be like the product is working, nothing new popping up on the safety side. And so it's just been a really rewarding experience for all of us to launch a medicine that has a mechanism that Neurocrine was founded on 33 years ago. It's just a bright spot on many levels.
Turning to a couple of pipeline updates that we're looking for this year. First, Matt, we've talked about this. We've spoken to some cerebral palsy specialists who absolutely believe that VMAT2 inhibition is very beneficial for patients with dyskinetic cerebral palsy, and I came to you with such tremendous enthusiasm having heard of this, but you've kind of been talking me down around some of the expectations. How should we be looking at that at this next Phase III data update for INGREZZA?
Yes, it's clearly a high unmet need. You have a patient population of about 50,000 patients that have this choreiform movement associated with their cerebral palsy, and you would think the hypothesis because you've seen the choreiform movements in Huntington's disease improve, that it could help patients with cerebral palsy. Now cerebral palsy is caused by prenatal trauma primarily. And you also have a trauma at delivery that makes this a very heterogeneous patient population. You also -- on the clinical trial risk side of the equation, you have competitors who have failed studies in this space, and we borrowed the Huntington's disease chorea scale as an endpoint for these cerebral palsy patients.
So there's obviously a lot of hope that we can help these patients with the new therapy, but there is a high level of clinical risk associated with it. And so we'll see what the results look like later this year.
And then last, osavampator, we're going to get some of that Phase II data disclosure, maybe a little bit ahead of what you had anticipated, what should we be looking for there? And to clarify, like you never -- you identified two doses, but never identified which was correlated to which efficacy signals. So I think most have assumed that there's an inverse dose correlation, but I don't think you ever actually said that.
Yes. We haven't disclosed what the dosing is or the dose response was in this trial. But what I can say is we saw a really clear response at one of the doses, placebo-adjusted MADRAS score down 7.5 points, effect size near 0.7. So really just industry-leading efficacy results in our Phase II trial. We've not published any of the information because through our partnership with Takeda at that time, we had not invested in any front-running of IP work that needed to be done. All of that -- all the patents have been filed at this point.
And so what you can expect out of that data set is you will see the different doses, what the responses were across a variety of different time points. And you also get a clearer view into what the side effect profile was. And we're really -- I'm personally very excited about that medicine. It fits right into our existing sales channel's hands that are marketing tardive dyskinesia, and it could be a big help through a different mechanism for patients with major depressive disorder. So thanks, Josh.
Yes. I think we're out of time. Thanks to the Neurocrine team. Thanks everyone for joining us.
Thank you.
Financial data from Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc.
Revenue
Revenue is the sum of all sales generated by a company, e.g. for its products or services.
Revenue (TTM) metric explainedDirect Costs
Direct costs are the costs incurred directly in connection with the manufacture of the product or service.
Gross Profit
Gross Profit indicates how much of the revenue remains in the company after deducting direct production costs. If the percentage share of sales is calculated, this is referred to as the gross margin.
Gross Profit metric explainedSelling and Administrative Expenses
Selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A) include all expenses for marketing and sales as well as the general administration of the company.
Research and Development Expense
Research and development costs (R&D) provide information on how much the company invests in the research and development of its products. The costs are particularly interesting as a percentage of revenue and in comparison to direct competitors.
EBITDA
EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization) is the company's earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. The EBITDA margin is calculated as a percentage of sales.
Depreciation and Amortization
Depreciation represents reductions in the value of the company's assets (e.g. due to wear and tear on machinery).
EBIT (Operating Income)
EBIT (Earnings Before Interest and Taxes) is the company's profit before interest and taxes, also known as the operating income. The EBIT Margin is calculated as a percentage of sales at
.
Net Profit
Net Profit represents the profit or loss after deduction of all costs.
Net Profit metric explainedStocksGuide Premium
| Jun '26 |
+/-
%
|
||
| Revenue | 3,374 3,374 |
34%
34%
100%
|
|
| - Direct Costs | 69 69 |
81%
81%
2%
|
|
| Gross Profit | 3,305 3,305 |
34%
34%
98%
|
|
| - Selling and Administrative Expenses | 1,352 1,352 |
25%
25%
40%
|
|
| - Research and Development Expense | 1,131 1,131 |
27%
27%
34%
|
|
| EBITDA | 823 823 |
56%
56%
24%
|
|
| - Depreciation and Amortization | 16 16 |
42%
42%
0%
|
|
| EBIT (Operating Income) EBIT | 806 806 |
62%
62%
24%
|
|
| Net Profit | 706 706 |
103%
103%
21%
|
|
In millions USD.
Don't miss a Thing! We will send you all news about Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. directly to your mailbox free of charge.
If you wish, we will send you an e-mail every morning with news on stocks of your portfolios.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. Stock News
Company Profile
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. operates as a product based bio-pharmaceutical company. It discovers, develops and intends to commercialize drugs for the treatment of neurological and endocrine related diseases and disorders. The company product includes INGREZZA. Neurocrine Biosciences was founded by Kevin C. Gorman and Wylie W. Vale on January 1992 and is headquartered in San Diego, CA.
StocksGuide Premium
| Head office | United States |
| CEO | Dr. Gano |
| Employees | 2,000 |
| Founded | 1992 |
| Website | www.neurocrine.com |


