Start 30 days free, no card. Full Pro access for a month, then decide. Start free
Analyst
Mike Yee
Period: Reporting periods mapped to calendar 2024 Q4 – 2026 Q3 (8 quarters; questions recorded in 7).
- Questions
- 41on tracked calls
- Challenge rate
- 22%9 of 41 questions
- Companies
- 11questioned 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 41 of 41 questions from 11 companies
VRTXVertex Pharmaceuticals7 questions · 5 reporting periods · 2 of 7 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q2
should we think about comparing the 2, either from a launch perspective or perhaps given the strong numbers
Show response
Reshma: the competitor's eGFR stabilization is expected and validates Pove's best-in-class proteinuria and dosing.
Calendar 2026 Q1
on the safety component for Povi, Reshma, can you talk a little bit about the hypogammaglobulinemia?
Show response
Reshma emphasized infections are the key safety metric, not IgG levels themselves. Noted cross-trial IgG comparisons are unreliable due to different measurement frequencies and thresholds.
on the efficacy standpoint your differentiation on eGFR will be able to come through over 9 or 12 or 24 months
Show response
Reshma deflected direct eGFR comparison, noting FDA doesn't allow sharing eGFR data yet. Emphasized proteinuria as the most proximal marker for long-term outcomes.
Calendar 2025 Q4
can you remind us how to think about what rates of ADA are possible, either absolute rates or neutralizing rates
Show response
Reshma stated ADAs are expected with biologics but neutralizing antibodies impacting efficacy are not a concern based on RUBY-3 data. On AMKD, expects Phase 3 results consistent with Phase 2 since FSGS and AMKD are the same disease with GFR slope as primary endpoint.
Calendar 2025 Q1
a lot of people are seeing it sort of decelerate week over week. So maybe could you just confirm or talk to what you see week-over-week
Show response
Duncan countered deceleration narrative, noting total prescriptions of 25,000 include hospital data not captured in IMS retail data. Last week showed fastest retail growth since launch.
could you just tell us about the data coming up in acute pain in the second half? And how would you compare that to the acute pain data we've already seen
Show response
Reshma confirmed VX-993 Phase II results expected H2 2025. 993 is more potent with higher dosing potential, could enable co-formulation with NaV1.7 or potentially improve on JOURNAVX efficacy.
Calendar 2024 Q4
can you just comment about your thoughts around the public payer coverage as it relates to Medicare, Medicaid
Show response
Stuart expressed high confidence in broad coverage citing universal awareness of unmet need and federal/state policy tailwinds supporting non-opioid access.
BIIBBiogen6 questions · 6 reporting periods · 3 of 6 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q2
Do you believe that CLE is a higher probability given perhaps less heterogeneity of the patient population
Show response
Singhal answered the comparison head-on, explained why AMETHYST Phase 2 data can be shared early, and set expectations for the EADV 52-week readout.
Calendar 2026 Q1
What type of trend it would make sense for you to push forward
Show response
Priya confirmed study was redesigned after Phase 1b tau reduction gave confidence to reduce power. Primary endpoint CDR sum of boxes with multiple doses and 2 treatment paradigms. Disciplined go/no-go criteria established ahead of readout. Chris noted the bar doesn't have to be statistically significant but must show signs of clinical benefit. No precedent exists for tau-targeting therapy.
Calendar 2025 Q4
how important is the tau sub study where, obviously, PET tau imaging is gonna be critically important
Show response
Priya confirmed tau PET, fluid biomarkers, and clinical trends will all be evaluated. Study has dedicated tau sub-study. Testing three doses and two dosing regimens in randomized controlled trial. Will triangulate across all data types to assess scientific hypothesis.
Calendar 2025 Q2
how you think myostatin would change the dynamics, whether you think that is additive to SMN correctors, and how would that impact you if competitors have combination products
Show response
Alisha stated myostatin is seen as additive to existing SMA therapies, not a competitive threat to SPINRAZA. Does not view it as a main competitor for current SMA treatment paradigm.
Calendar 2025 Q1
I wanted to ask Priya about the early AHEAD 3-45 study
Show response
Priya differentiated AHEAD 3-45 as testing full presymptomatic spectrum vs Trailblazer's mixed population (55% presymptomatic, 45% symptomatic). Different endpoints: PACC5 vs CDR. Readout 2028.
Calendar 2024 Q4
Can you walk through how important that is in terms of any bottlenecks and specifically whether that totally would be able to replace pet
Show response
Priya explained FDA-approved IVDs are expected in the near-term, with Fujirebio already filed. Acknowledged concordance data and reimbursement still needed but momentum is strong.
MRNAModerna6 questions · 5 reporting periods · 1 of 6 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q2
if you go back to your Phase 2b, it was statistically significant, but you were using a one-sided alpha of 0.1
Show response
Berman noted the Phase 3 requires a minimum 18-month follow-up, capturing the delayed separation seen in Phase 2, which increases confidence.
Calendar 2026 Q1
Would we expect that, that's a similarly designed protocol as it relates to the interim
Show response
Hoge confirmed interim threshold not requiring Phase II hazard ratio, something between there and not significant. RCC has registrational potential at lower alpha threshold (0.1). DSMB will advise whether to declare success, continue blinded, or assess futility.
Calendar 2025 Q4
that that study has interims built in and then, of course, a final
Show response
Hoge explained INT Phase 3 uses RFS as primary with interim analysis this year. If insufficient power at interim, proceeds to subsequent analyses. Norovirus is trivalent, seropositive adult population (different from prior failed pediatric studies), case-driven with potential 2026 data.
Calendar 2025 Q2
talk to expectations about what you guys think is a positive readout, both on VE, but also what is a good readout on the secondary endpoint
Show response
Hoge set 49.1% VE as lower bound acceptability threshold. Secondary endpoints include virus persistence in blood/urine. On regulatory, noted 3 approvals happened on time and dialogues remain productive.
Calendar 2024 Q4
Do you need both to hit the primary or to hit the event rate and just help us understand the timing of that
Show response
Majority of participants enrolled in Northern Hemisphere; Southern Hemisphere may not be needed for sufficient case accrual.
it's certainly possible on the event rates that were seen in Phase II that the data could come by end of year or first half of '26
Show response
Hoge noted 2026 seems possible but wouldn't commit to early vs late timing, citing population differences between Phase II and Phase III.
AMGNAmgen Inc.5 questions · 5 reporting periods · 1 of 5 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q2
Just thinking about how you design the protocol, is that involving an interim?
Show response
Bradner detailed OCEAN(a): 7,297 patients, 3-point MACE endpoint, Lp(a) >200 threshold, and said the stroke exclusion does not change the event rate by their modeling.
Calendar 2026 Q1
I am wondering if you think that background therapies such as GLP-1 or PCSK9 either would impact your trial design or your competitor trial design
Show response
Jay emphasized Lp(a) is an independent risk factor unaffected by GLP-1s or statins, reinforcing olpasiran's differentiated mechanism and OCEANA-ACE study design with 7,300 patients.
Calendar 2025 Q4
I was wondering, and to ask your view of the portfolio overall in obesity given that folks like today are disclosing combinations with monthly or monthly and then combinations and how you see this ...
Show response
Bradner disclosed AMG 513, an undisclosed-mechanism clinical-stage obesity asset in Phase I, plus preclinical programs spanning incretin and non-incretin pathways including oral and injectable candidates. Emphasized Amgen's long history in obesity since leptin era and stable discovery leadership.
Calendar 2025 Q1
I'm curious about your confidence that we will see very competitive tolerability and very strong efficacy and that, that narrative will hold up?
Show response
Bradway expressed strong confidence in Phase III design informed by Phase II and Phase I PK learnings. Gordon noted MariTide's monthly dosing makes it less vulnerable to orals than weekly GLP-1s, and Amgen is pursuing its own oral pipeline.
Calendar 2024 Q4
Can you maybe comment about your strategic view about where you'd like to be in a couple of years, if you are so confident on MariTide
Show response
Bradner pushed back on the 'slip-up' framing, emphasizing the pipeline includes integrins, non-integrins, oral and subcutaneous candidates plus external innovation partnerships. Bradway clarified AMG 513 is still expected to advance.
BMYBristol Myers Squibb4 questions · 3 reporting periods · 1 of 4 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q2
can you just talk a little bit about the 120 dose that you're using
Show response
Massacesi explained the dose-response rationale and said the blinded safety event rate has been reassuring, giving two fully powered shots on goal.
Calendar 2026 Q1
you can see that the stroke rates are quite historically a lot lower than they were back in the original days of Eliquis
Show response
Cristian could not disclose baseline characteristics but stated events are accruing as expected and the study remains on track for year-end readout.
Calendar 2025 Q4
Can you just remind us how often that study is looked at
Show response
Cristian noted enrollment complete at 20,000+ patients, well past the point where oceanic AFib terminated. DSMB continues to endorse progression on both efficacy and safety.
Is metabolic obesity a fair question or a fair area that investors should be understanding of
Show response
Chris acknowledged metabolics is exciting but said primary BD focus remains on existing TAs where BMY can best add value scientifically and commercially.
GILDGilead Sciences4 questions · 4 reporting periods · 0 of 4 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q2
How are you thinking about things that you could do to get it higher
Show response
Mercier detailed a new Ready to Go support program with SMS reminders, educational resources, and a nurse call center to push persistency above 70%.
Calendar 2025 Q4
Can you tell us a little bit about the profile of that drug and what you're seeing in Phase one to get you excited
Show response
Dietmar highlighted two Q6M programs: lenacapavir plus broadly neutralizing antibodies (infusion, earlier) and lenacapavir plus GS-3242 (long-acting INSTI). Emphasized INSTI benefits of tolerability, resistance profile, and forgiveness. Noted competitors need combinations and cannot achieve Q6M on one product alone.
Calendar 2025 Q1
your expectations for the PrEP one. And assuming approval on time, how you think about the dynamics in the second half
Show response
Johanna confirmed access ramp to 75% in 6 months and 90% in 12 months. Early prescriptions will go through medical exceptions as plans come online.
Calendar 2024 Q4
can you just comment about your recent interactions with the FDA and the perspective of the FDA and HHS with the incoming administration
Show response
Dan confirmed all lenacapavir PrEP regulatory interactions are on track. Johanna added that breakthrough designation supports the timeline for summer launch.
Show 5 more companies
ABBVAbbVie2 questions · 2 reporting periods · 0 of 2 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q2
Can you just talk a little bit about your expectations on tevapadone launch? Ultimately and how you see this playing out and what could be a slow start, fast start?
Show response
Jeff Stewart described tevapadon as a highly differentiated first selective D1/D5 agonist but flagged a modest initial ramp tied to Medicare formulary timing, while reaffirming its contribution to the greater-than-$5 billion Parkinson's peak potential.
Calendar 2025 Q4
Can you just tell me a little bit about what you're to get from that study
Show response
Roopal Thakkar explained platform studying both naive and Skyrizi-experienced patients in expanding 2nd/3rd line IBD setting. Combinations include alpha-4-beta-7, lutikizumab, TL1A, and TREM1. Strategy avoids boxed warnings (no anti-TNF combinations). Co-formulation for patient-friendly delivery also under development. Data expected this year.
JNJJohnson & Johnson2 questions · 1 reporting period · 0 of 2 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q3
I just wanted to check-in on your confidence that should be similar to Asundexian.
Show response
Reed expressed confidence, citing potency and dosing margin, with secondary stroke data possibly this year and AFib next year.
Just wondering if you think that would be replicated to biologic-like efficacy as an oral
Show response
John Reed said the IBD efficacy question is to be determined by Phase 3 data, noting fast enrollment.
LLYLilly (Eli)2 questions · 2 reporting periods · 0 of 2 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q2
can you talk a little bit about which specific regions are seeing the most growth?
Show response
Patrik Jonsson highlighted China, Korea, U.K., Mexico, and Germany, and noted Mounjaro TRx still grew after generic semaglutide launched.
Calendar 2025 Q4
Just wanted to ask your expectation on the orforglipron launch general view of unit volume scripts vis-a-vis the tirzepatide launch
Show response
Ilya noted orforglipron launches into a larger market with greater consumer and provider awareness than tirzepatide did. The scale DTC platform plus significant self-pay awareness differentiates this launch from typical pharma access-first model. Expectations high for market expansion and bringing new people to therapy.
MRKMerck & Co., Inc.2 questions · 2 reporting periods · 1 of 2 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q2
how do you think we should think about the profile in ulcerative colitis, appreciating the second study is coming?
Show response
Dean Li said the second UC study completes the filing package and defended the immunofibrosis thesis despite the SSc-ILD miss.
Calendar 2026 Q1
how are you thinking about the dynamic of a sac-TMT in the context of PD-1 VEGFs and your own Lenova asset
Show response
Dean Li highlighted that PD-1 VEGF could serve as a combination backbone for multiple agents, and confirmed they are actively considering combining PD-1 VEGF with sac-TMT and other pipeline assets.
PFEPfizer1 question · 1 reporting period · 0 of 1 challenging
Calendar 2025 Q4
can you just remind us how much information you knew or what data you already had? I booked there's already a large phase one ongoing
Show response
Boshoff confirmed Yaopharm 5002 is a non-danuglipron scaffold oral GLP-1 in Phase I; planning US Phase I and combo studies with GIPR antagonist; transitioning manufacturing to US. Denton noted BD capacity increased above $7B with pending ViiV liquidation.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| VRTX Vertex Pharmaceuticals | 7 | 29%2 of 7 questions |
| BIIB Biogen | 6 | 50%3 of 6 questions |
| MRNA Moderna | 6 | 17%1 of 6 questions |
| AMGN Amgen Inc. | 5 | 20%1 of 5 questions |
| BMY Bristol Myers Squibb | 4 | 25%1 of 4 questions |
| GILD Gilead Sciences | 4 | 0%none of 4 questions |
| ABBV AbbVie | 2 | —Rate withheld: fewer than 3 questions |
| JNJ Johnson & Johnson | 2 | —Rate withheld: fewer than 3 questions |
| LLY Lilly (Eli) | 2 | —Rate withheld: fewer than 3 questions |
| MRK Merck & Co., Inc. | 2 | —Rate withheld: fewer than 3 questions |
- VRTXVertex Pharmaceuticals · 7 questions29%2 of 7 questions
- BIIBBiogen · 6 questions50%3 of 6 questions
- MRNAModerna · 6 questions17%1 of 6 questions
- AMGNAmgen Inc. · 5 questions20%1 of 5 questions
- BMYBristol Myers Squibb · 4 questions25%1 of 4 questions
- GILDGilead Sciences · 4 questions0%none of 4 questions
- ABBVAbbVie · 2 questions—rate withheld: under 3 questions
- JNJJohnson & Johnson · 2 questions—rate withheld: under 3 questions
- LLYLilly (Eli) · 2 questions—rate withheld: under 3 questions
- MRKMerck & Co., Inc. · 2 questions—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 | 0%none of 6 questions | 5 |
| 2025 Q1 | 5 | 60%3 of 5 questions | 4 |
| 2025 Q2 | 2 | 50%1 of 2 questions | 2 |
| 2025 Q3 | No questions recorded | — | — |
| 2025 Q4 | 10 | 0%none of 10 questions | 9 |
| 2026 Q1 | 7 | 29%2 of 7 questions | 6 |
| 2026 Q2 | 9 | 33%3 of 9 questions | 9 |
| 2026 Q3 | 2 | 0%none of 2 questions | 1 |
- 2024 Q46 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 6 questions) · 5 companies
- 2025 Q15 questions · challenge rate 60% (3 of 5 questions) · 4 companies
- 2025 Q22 questions · challenge rate 50% (1 of 2 questions) · 2 companies
- 2025 Q3No questions recorded
- 2025 Q410 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 10 questions) · 9 companies
- 2026 Q17 questions · challenge rate 29% (2 of 7 questions) · 6 companies
- 2026 Q29 questions · challenge rate 33% (3 of 9 questions) · 9 companies
- 2026 Q32 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 2 questions) · 1 company
Topics
Topics tagged on this analyst’s questions.
- Innovation & R&D32
- Competitive Dynamics15
- Product Launch11
- Regulation Policy4
- Demand3
- M&A2
- Geographic Expansion1
- Capital Allocation1