Start 30 days free, no card. Full Pro access for a month, then decide. Start free
Analyst
Akash Tewari
Period: Reporting periods mapped to calendar 2024 Q4 – 2026 Q2 (7 quarters).
- Questions
- 32on tracked calls
- Challenge rate
- 28%9 of 32 questions
- Companies
- 7questioned at least once
- Reporting periods
- 7with questions
These figures cover the whole profile: every tracked question, all reporting periods.
How to read these numbers
Challenge rate is the share of questions that pushed back, pressed for specifics or questioned management’s assumptions. It describes how questions were asked on the calls tracked here; it does not measure whether any view turned out to be right.
Rounding. Rates are rounded to whole percentages, so a small share can show as 0% even when some questions were challenging. The count beside each rate is exact; “none of N questions” means no question was challenging.
No questions recorded. “—” means there is nothing to calculate: no questions were recorded for that period on the calls tracked here. It does not mean there was no activity.
Fewer than 3 questions. A company-level rate is withheld when fewer than 3 questions were recorded for that company; the questions are still counted everywhere else.
Small samples. Profiles with fewer than 10 questions are marked Limited sample.
Reporting periods. Questions are grouped by the calendar quarter each company’s fiscal reporting period maps to, not by the date of the call. Periods without a calendar mapping are listed separately under their fiscal label.
Questions asked
Grouped by company, most questions first. Open a company to read its questions, newest reporting period first.
Showing 32 of 32 questions from 7 companies
BMYBristol Myers Squibb7 questions · 5 reporting periods · 2 of 7 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q2
You previously mentioned both bleeding events and AFib events need to mature for the trial to stop.
Show response
Massacesi gave the disclosed event thresholds for both endpoints and confirmed both must be met before database lock, with readout in first quarter 2027.
Calendar 2026 Q1
can you talk about your confidence on the successor on study, which goes against POMALYST
Show response
Cristian expressed high confidence in Successor1 based on Successor2 interim results and noted mezigdomide is more potent than iberdomide.
Can you talk about why you added that criteria for the study? And was it based on any issues you saw with the ADEPT II
Show response
Cristian explained biomarker selection reduces patient heterogeneity and increases confidence in enrolling true Alzheimer's patients despite slightly higher screening failures.
Calendar 2025 Q3
why hasn't the data been locked at this point? And why open more ex U.S. sites
Show response
Chris declined to provide specifics on data lock or enrollment. Reiterated confidence in overall Cobenfy program citing external data, real-world feedback, and internal data.
Calendar 2025 Q2
What percentage of patients do you think for your upcoming AD Psychosis study get to that 150 or 200 mg dose
Show response
Samit noted 4-dose escalation design with 200mg optional. Cautioned against directly comparing to 30-year-old xanomeline-only tolerability data. Conducting site reviews.
Calendar 2024 Q4
So what's the risk around the adjunct schizophrenia trial for KabEnfI? Because we haven't seen a lot of companies run that specific trial
Show response
Samit pointed to 52-week EMERGE 4/5 data showing maintained efficacy with concomitant meds as supportive evidence for adjunct approach.
on the Camis label update, are you aiming for 6 months echo monitoring requirements
Show response
Adam clarified EU label already updated to 6-month echo in maintenance phase, expecting similar U.S. PDUFA outcome to open COE capacity.
LLYLilly (Eli)6 questions · 6 reporting periods · 2 of 6 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q2
it seems like your guidance is almost implying a deceleration in revs versus Q2 for the back half of the year
Show response
Lucas Montarce explained one-off rebate adjustments, the 2025 OUS launch bolus not repeating, and normal European and U.S. seasonality.
Calendar 2025 Q4
Can you talk about some consumer analog you'd point investors towards when you're thinking about long-term penetration for both the US and OUS for your weight loss product
Show response
Dave acknowledged no perfect consumer analog exists, PDE/ED drugs had some overlap but different dynamics, cosmetics/aesthetics overlap but lack profound health benefits. Highlighted potential for subscription models, first-party data marketing, and platform-based differentiation. A million U.S. patients and hundreds of thousands more OUS already using DTC channels.
Calendar 2025 Q3
Can Lilly achieve both goals of kind of preserving continuous innovation in obesity and having orfo be a drug for hundreds of millions of patients with the parity pricing model between the U.S. and...
Show response
Dave outlined three-part framework: consumer self-pay channel is unique at scale in GLP-1s, proving long-term health benefit competes for healthcare dollars not consumer dollars, and these two goals are not in conflict. Emphasized we are literally scratching the surface of global treatment with tens or hundreds of millions more to reach.
Calendar 2025 Q2
What's Lilly's appetite to committing to launching new products at net parity pricing between the U.S. and Europe
Show response
Dave supported long-term rebalancing via trade tools, not imported price controls. Favors on-ramp approach with new products, needs both European reimbursement increases and U.S. gross-to-net reform.
Calendar 2025 Q1
Would long-term net pricing have to approach insulin levels for that to become a reality?
Show response
Lucas reaffirmed pricing trends without long-term projections. Deferred to broader volume-over-price strategy and disciplined approach to optionality.
Calendar 2024 Q4
Are you implying that while you'll give additional discounts to the channel to improve access, that will be offset by improved adherence?
Show response
Lucas confirmed single-digit pricing erosion continues into 2025. Patrik added Mounjaro patients show longer adherence than Trulicity and Ozempic.
MRKMerck & Co., Inc.6 questions · 6 reporting periods · 2 of 6 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q2
with sac-TMT, we've seen a signal regardless of PD-L1 expression with the OptiTROP-Lung05 and 06 data
Show response
Dean Li confirmed Merck will rethink the KEYNOTE-189 backbone and advance sac-TMT combos with both pembro and PD-1/VEGF.
Calendar 2025 Q4
I am kind of curious why your Trope-two development strategy seems to be relatively conservative
Show response
Dean pushed back on the characterization, citing 16 Phase III studies (11 first-in-class) for sac TMT and differentiated approaches in NSCLC and breast cancer.
Calendar 2025 Q3
what gets you more excited? The signal you're seeing with your TROP2 or the PD-1 VEGF class
Show response
Dean pushed back on bucketing all TROP2 ADCs together and emphasized sac-TMT differentiation, while saying PD-1/VEGF data will define its placement vs PD-1.
Calendar 2025 Q2
What's the right cadence when you think about this going forward, not only for the rest of 2025
Show response
Rob said WINREVAIR has been adding 400-500 patients per month steadily; Dean confirmed Hansoh GLP-1 moving to clinic this year as planned.
Calendar 2025 Q1
is a 25% tariff a reasonable expectation? Or do you expect the headline number to be higher
Show response
Rob declined to speculate on tariff magnitude or EPS impact, repeating that Merck is well-positioned under most scenarios.
Calendar 2024 Q4
What are the ballpark components of that $25 billion figure, particularly for the TROP2 and the Daiichi ADCs
Show response
Rob attributed the $25B upgrade to added T-cell engager from Harpoon and stronger TROP2 conviction, noting subcu KEYTRUDA is incremental.
PFEPfizer5 questions · 5 reporting periods · 3 of 5 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q2
There's been a proposal from the CMS to cut reimbursement for 340B hospital payments from ASP plus 6 to ASP minus 33%.
Show response
Albert backed 340B reform but declined to predict enactment odds or the final shape, citing uncertainty; a partial answer on portfolio impact.
Calendar 2025 Q4
the data in second line plus NSCLC has been pretty underwhelming so far versus docetaxel. Your team confident that you can deliver a superior profile with your upcoming Phase three
Show response
Boshoff acknowledged no ADC has shown benefit over docetaxel in second-line but cited 30%+ response rate and 16.3-month mOS in Phase II; SV plus pembro showed 57% ORR and 90%+ DCR; first-line study is event-driven with slower-than-expected events; readout expected first half 2026.
Calendar 2025 Q3
I had a question on your upcoming Phase III EZH2 readout in CRPC. I'm surprised the study is more prominently flagged given the potential to extend the XTANDI franchise
Show response
Boshoff cited prior randomized PFS data supporting the program; three Phase III studies ongoing; first readout in post-abiraterone mCRPC expected in coming months; ASCO food effect data confirmed comparable dose with reduced GI AEs.
Calendar 2025 Q1
Would it be fair to say that the bottom line earnings impact would be a single-digit percent basis with reasonable mitigation steps?
Show response
Bourla refused to quantify potential tariff impact, stated detailed contingency plans exist but focus is on preventing tariffs rather than mitigating them.
Calendar 2024 Q4
you don't actually test your bilayer formulation until the second half of your weight loss trial. Is that what your team is waiting on
Show response
Bourla declined to confirm formulation technology details, stating they cannot disclose; Boshoff added nothing further.
REGNRegeneron Pharmaceuticals5 questions · 5 reporting periods · 0 of 5 challenging
Calendar 2025 Q4
can you talk about the co-formulation here? How are you able to deliver both drugs in a single auto-injector
Show response
Yancopoulos credited formulations team that delivered EYLEA/EYLEA HD with solving the co-formulation challenge. Same volume as standard GLP auto-injector. Schleifer declined to comment on partnering discussions but said they are always open-minded to value-enhancing deals.
Calendar 2025 Q3
your team has retooled your commercial strategy on EYLEA, and it seems related to kind of price
Show response
Schleifer declined to discuss rebate strategy or ground-level competitive tactics. McCourt attributed EYLEA HD performance to product profile and clinical efficacy. Schleifer added that significant upswing requires label enhancements. McCourt guided moderate to high single digit sequential demand growth for HD.
Calendar 2025 Q2
Interestingly, the ASP actually hasn't declined that much, suggesting Amgen may be offering deferred discounts
Show response
Schleifer hinted that Amgen's deferred rebate practices may be driving PAVBLU success and said they are looking into it. Emphasized EYLEA's 100 million injection track record and positioned EYLEA HD as the real answer to biosimilar competition.
Calendar 2025 Q1
Can you comment on what percent of your U.S. patient base received funding in 2024
Show response
Schleifer firmly declined all questions connecting charitable contributions to EYLEA volumes, citing regulatory restrictions. Reiterated matching program concept without committing to timeline.
Calendar 2024 Q4
Regeneron is the only company that's shown an incremental benefit in a total knee replacement study versus Eliquis
Show response
Yancopoulos explained dual-antibody strategy: 7508 (catalytic domain) for maximum anticoagulation, 9933 (A2 domain) for patients with highest bleeding risk. Designed for different patients and indications.
AMGNAmgen Inc.2 questions · 2 reporting periods · 0 of 2 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q2
What's the baseline LDL-C in the OCEAN trial you are planning? Or, like, is it in the same level?
Show response
Gordon said OCEAN(a) targets Lp(a) >200 for a higher-risk group and argued Lp(a) elevation is a risk factor independent of LDL-C; did not state a specific OCEAN LDL-C baseline.
Calendar 2026 Q1
you are making an interesting bet, splitting it up into systemic and symptomatic patients. What kind of drove that decision?
Show response
Jay explained the heterogeneous disease presentation warranted separate studies to capture distinct clinical outcomes. Differentiated dazodalibep's CD40L mechanism from discontinued Novartis CD40 approach.
Show 1 more company
GILDGilead Sciences1 question · 1 reporting period · 0 of 1 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q1
How much of that NPV was driven by ovarian and the signal you are seeing there for 040 versus the potential to take this into lung
Show response
Management outlined multiple value sources: ovarian cancer alone justifies the deal, the P5 linker and ALCO-5 platform technologies provide differentiation, and TUB-30 adds broader tumor-type potential.
Challenge rate by company
Every company this analyst questioned, most questions first. A company-level rate is shown from 3 questions; below that it is withheld.
| Company | Questions | Challenge rate |
|---|---|---|
| BMY Bristol Myers Squibb | 7 | 29%2 of 7 questions |
| LLY Lilly (Eli) | 6 | 33%2 of 6 questions |
| MRK Merck & Co., Inc. | 6 | 33%2 of 6 questions |
| PFE Pfizer | 5 | 60%3 of 5 questions |
| REGN Regeneron Pharmaceuticals | 5 | 0%none of 5 questions |
| AMGN Amgen Inc. | 2 | —Rate withheld: fewer than 3 questions |
| GILD Gilead Sciences | 1 | —Rate withheld: fewer than 3 questions |
- BMYBristol Myers Squibb · 7 questions29%2 of 7 questions
- LLYLilly (Eli) · 6 questions33%2 of 6 questions
- MRKMerck & Co., Inc. · 6 questions33%2 of 6 questions
- PFEPfizer · 5 questions60%3 of 5 questions
- REGNRegeneron Pharmaceuticals · 5 questions0%none of 5 questions
- AMGNAmgen Inc. · 2 questions—rate withheld: under 3 questions
- GILDGilead Sciences · 1 question—rate withheld: under 3 questions
Activity by reporting period
Questions recorded for each calendar quarter that companies’ reporting periods map to (not the call date), with the challenge rate for that period. Periods inside the range with no questions are shown as “No questions recorded”.
| Calendar period | Questions | Challenge rate | Companies |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 Q4 | 6 | 17%1 of 6 questions | 5 |
| 2025 Q1 | 4 | 0%none of 4 questions | 4 |
| 2025 Q2 | 4 | 25%1 of 4 questions | 4 |
| 2025 Q3 | 5 | 80%4 of 5 questions | 5 |
| 2025 Q4 | 4 | 50%2 of 4 questions | 4 |
| 2026 Q1 | 4 | 0%none of 4 questions | 3 |
| 2026 Q2 | 5 | 20%1 of 5 questions | 5 |
- 2024 Q46 questions · challenge rate 17% (1 of 6 questions) · 5 companies
- 2025 Q14 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 4 questions) · 4 companies
- 2025 Q24 questions · challenge rate 25% (1 of 4 questions) · 4 companies
- 2025 Q35 questions · challenge rate 80% (4 of 5 questions) · 5 companies
- 2025 Q44 questions · challenge rate 50% (2 of 4 questions) · 4 companies
- 2026 Q14 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 4 questions) · 3 companies
- 2026 Q25 questions · challenge rate 20% (1 of 5 questions) · 5 companies
Topics
Topics tagged on this analyst’s questions.
- Innovation & R&D19
- Competitive Dynamics11
- Pricing8
- Demand4
- Regulation Policy3
- Product Launch2
- Margin2
- Trade Tariffs2
- Guidance Reliability1
- Revenue Growth1
Show all 13 topics
- M&A1
- Capital Allocation1
- Geographic Expansion1