“So you're going to see other oncology grow spend as KEYTRUDA is pulled back.”

In context

“l answer the question. Obviously, we've been the leader in IO therapy with KEYTRUDA. And as we've consistently said, we have every intention of not only being and continuing to be the leader, but to broaden our leadership across the broader suite of oncology assets we have which, as you know now across the tissue targeting agents and antibody conjugates across all of the small molecules we have, we have one of the broader, if not the broadest pipeline now moving forward in the oncology space. So as you look at the spend, to your point, we're not necessarily looking to pull back spending on oncology. We're going to grow, and it's about reallocating the resources and adding to those resources as we start to move away from just being focused on KEYTRUDA to the broader suite of opportunities. So you're going to see other oncology grow spend as KEYTRUDA is pulled back. Peter Dannenbaum: Our next question comes from Trung Huynh with UBS. Trung Chuong Huynh: It's just one on the One Big Beautiful Bill expanding the orphan drug exclusion under the IRA and how that affects the timing of KEYTRUDA's potential selection for IRA price cuts. So when KEYTRUDA was initially approved, it carried an orphan designation, its first non-orphan indication was approved about a year later. So does this One Big Beautiful Bill update effectively shift KEYTRUDA's IRA selection from 2028 to 2029? And then would the presence of biosimilars by that time actually mean KEYTRUDA won't be selected for IRA? Robert M. Davis: Yes. I appreciate the question. So maybe just from a policy perspective, we are very supportive of the language that was put in, in support of orphan drugs. We've”