“We do not think that a transformative acquisition, a synergy-driven deal is something that we need to do nor aligns with our future”

In context

“unities, immunology, cardiometabolic and the like are where we're continuing to focus. As is always the case, science will drive us. And when we see a scientific opportunity where there's an unmet need that we think strategically aligns with our approach, if we see value, we'll move. So no change in our approach. And as you think about deal size, we continue to be focused in that $1 billion to $15 billion range as the primary area. But as we've been clear to say in the past, we are willing to go larger than that, but always with the focus on science and always understanding that if we look and see an opportunity, we're going to do it based on that unmet need. As you think forward to your broader question on the reemergence of potential larger scale deals, our view of that has not changed. We do not think that a transformative acquisition, a synergy-driven deal is something that we need to do nor aligns with our future because as you know, we have one of the most robust pipelines we've ever had, and we see large synergy-driven deals as disruptive to that activity. And so our focus will be on bringing in pipeline assets not on those types of deals. But as you think about that, as we've said in the past, we're open to Phase I all the way through Phase III, and where we can find it, commercial opportunities. So we look across the full spectrum. Operator: Our next question comes from Geoff Meacham with Citibank. Geoffrey Meacham: I had a pipeline one for Dean. So on the expanding development of your TLL1 (sic) [ TL1A ] immunology, I'm assuming that a broad development program was already in place surrounding the Prometheus deal. But maybe talk about the selection of the indications that you just announced f”