Novo Nordisk A S (NVO) shareholder call, June 6, 2026 transcript

All right, good evening, and welcome to the 2026 NOVO NORDISK Investor Event in connection with the American Diabetes Association's annual meeting here in New Orleans. So my name is Michael Novot. I'm heading up the IR team at NOVO, and I'm just going to run through a bit of practicalities.

Apparently not. I just run through a bit of practicalities. So we're going to start with having a short presentation. And then also followed by Q&A. And then the event is going to have a duration of 50 minutes before we're going to conclude.

All right. I should also say that we do expect to make forward-looking statements, and they may differ from expectations. So read that just as a reminder. Today's speaker on the stage is our CEO, Mike Dusa. He's going to give some brief introductions. That is also Martin Hois-Lange, our Vice President, Head of Research and Development, and also Chief Scientific Officer. And then also for the Q&A, we'll also be joined by Karl Munklussen, our CFO.

So with that, Mike, what's with you?

Thanks very much. So also on my behalf, welcome to ADA and to this session. I will start with the slide that you have seen a number of times. I will not spend too much time on it. But we are quite proud that when we walk through the halls of the ADA, actually this congress is no longer just about diabetes, but obesity. I would say 10 years ago, we were the only one echoing the voice of people suffering from obesity. And today, it is nice to see that so many other companies are with us in that journey. Connected, of course, to these two conditions, there are a lot of other comorbidities, MASH, CVD, chronic kidney disease, and in all of those, we are a proud owner of assets and we would like to build upon that heritage as we go forward.

We also have, of course, our rare disease franchise, where I will not get too much into it today. Now, this week, we also made an announcement about how we're doing with our pill, which has been one of the most talked upon assets of NOVO NORDIS and the launches recently. I think at the last quarterly meeting, we talked about how the field has become the best product launch within the category of GLP-1 and perhaps within the whole category of launches in the U. S. We are quite happy that we announced just a couple of days ago that we have now reached more than 3 million prescriptions. And I have to put that in perspective. We are now in week 22, I believe.

It took us 10 weeks, or it took us 12 weeks to get to 1 million prescriptions. And in the last subsequent 10 weeks, we have done 2 additional million prescriptions. That's in light of competition having arrived in the latter part. So if that is not acceleration, I don't know what is. I think it's been going very well, and we are also very happy to see that the pill is creating a bit of a halo effect on the whole franchises of Vigobi. On the back of Vigovie High Dose, Vigovie HD, of course, the original Vigovie, the pill is really causing us now to have around 60% of the NDRXs in the U. S. under the brand Vigovie compared to our competitors.

So this is something we are very, very proud of. Then I also thought I'd share this slide with you before I pass it to Martin going through the details.

One of the most questions that I get on the pill is why are you doing so well, especially in the light of competition having arrived? Because I guess I am speaking on behalf of most of you that very few had anticipated that. And the reason, I think, is a combination of, of course, the efficacy that you see here, 16.6% versus 12.4. That's some 34 percentage difference in efficacy of the pill versus what we're competing with. The tolerability happens to also be at least compared to our competitor better when you compare the number of people that dropped out of our trial versus in their respective trial.

The mace and the label of Vigobi is helping a lot. This is a product that's not just reducing weight, but is giving you the cardio protection that Vigovy is synonymous with. So that is also another reason why the physicians are prescribing this meditation. The safety profile of it on the back of 50 million patient lives is also something physicians speak to us about. And maybe last but not least, when you compare it to our competitor, it's the least restrictive medication, which is the part that most people have ignored and or did not speak to for maybe good or bad reasons. Yes, I think I'll be the first to say we have one restriction compared to our competitor, and that's that you have to wait 30 minutes before you take food with the medication.

You take a sip of water, and then you wait 30 minutes. It has not been a problem for millions of patients that are on the pill right now. Meanwhile, against that single restriction, you can see where the restrictions for my competing peers are. It is quite complicated and restrictive to take the other meditation. And that's the fact of it, and that's what the physicians and the patients are trying to, of course, find a way around. And perhaps this, combined with good sales and marketing, is really the reasons why we feel very comfortable that we are on a good path. We have launched a product now in UAE, two days ago, actually. And early data, and it is really early data, gives me also very good hope that that will be an equally good launch.

And then more of that to come as we go forward with more launches, which we will announce going forward. Now, it has been, I think I'm subjective, but I think it has been a good ADA for us with some 40 different abstracts accepted. 100% of the abstracts that we submitted has been accepted by ADA. Amongst which, of course, the products that you see, we have had 36 presentations and four oral presentations covering more than 15 different clinical trials. And Martin will now speak to some of the highlights of those things.

Thank you very much, Mike. So, good lord. Yeah, can we turn the volume down? So I'm going to focus obviously on, you've seen top line data on KACOSM and type 2 diabetes. I'll remind you we also did redefine two, which was part of the OBESEPER program, but today I'm going to focus on the reimagined program, that is the dedicated type 2 diabetes program, and a secondary endpoint of weight loss. I'm going to focus on tenagantide in type 2 diabetes, and then I'm going to show you some details also on UBT251. The highlights of... Excuse me for one minute. All right. So, very briefly, actually, I have to say that some of Julio Rosenstock and Donna Reiner are tough to follow, So, and you probably attended most of you, the session that was just finalized.

You've seen the data. It is three studies basically comprising the spectrum of type 2 diabetes from very early type 2 diabetes in reimagined one through advanced type 2 diabetes in reimagined two to late stage type 2 diabetes in reimagined three. So when we talk about the very early type 2 diabetes, the average duration of diabetes was actually less than two years in that population. The three studies have reasonably similar design. So comparing Cacosema 2.4 milligram to 1 milligram in all of them, in all of them also placebo arm, And in reimagined too, also comparing to the monocomponent of semaglalcide and cargrilentide.

In all three studies, less than 50% females. Obviously, you've seen a couple of times during this ADA, you also have heard us talk about it before. We do know that that impacts the weight loss observed in the studies that we do, because we see bigger weight loss with women than we do with men. We have a mean BMI in the two first studies of around 35 and a mean BMI in the last study of 31. Again, important when you interpret the data. And that basically is reflecting a mean body weight around 100 kilos in the first two studies and 90 kilograms in the last study. The weight loss you've seen in Reimagine 2 at the highest dose, 14.2 percentage weight loss, with an A1C lowering of 1.9%.

I do want to mention, if I placebo control that, it's going to be two percentage points, which obviously in this space, and you've seen other diabetes data being presented at this year's ADA, Obviously, glycemic control does actually still matter in type 2 diabetes. Obviously, we want the big weight losses, but the first license to operate is good glycemic control. So approximately 2 percentage points lower A1c in this specific study combined with a 14.2 percentage point weight loss. For consistency, we basically see around the same 14% weight loss in the reimagined one and the reimagined three studies, and around two percentage point lowering in A1C. Obviously, there's a range. It depends on the specific population. But again, if you placebo control somewhere between 1.6 and 1.8, lowering in A1C.

So really, really robust and consistent data. There were a lot of discussions of the tolerability profile of caclosemia. We talked about it. You also saw it today. You see improved glycemic control, superior glycemic control vis-a-vis semaglutide in monotherapy, better weight loss vis-a-vis semaglutide in monotherapy, but comparable adverse events rates as compared to semaglutide in monotherapy. So you basically get better weight loss better glycemic control but with the same safety and tolerability profile and no new safety events occurring in the space of these studies Just want to point out, we are not ready to do regulatory submission of type 2 diabetes for catalysemic because we are waiting the cardiovascular outcomes data for basically, So, we're doing that in one file called Redefine 3, and that will read out next year.

What will also happen next is obviously that we do initiate the higher dose of calclycemia. As you've seen, we've successfully established that we can increase the dose of semaglutide in monotherapy to 7.2 mg without compromising on safety and tolerability as compared to lower doses of semaglutide. We intend to leverage that and initiating higher-dose CAC with semastudis later this year.

Turning to Seneganside, just reminding you that in obesity in the same time span of the study, approximately six months, we saw in obesity 24.4% weight loss. Obviously, we expect to see something slightly lower in type 2 diabetes, and specifically, we saw almost 15% weight loss in type 2 diabetes. We do know that there is a little bit of a resistance to weight loss in patients with type 2 diabetes, so it is expected to see a slightly lower weight loss.

But as you've also seen during this year's ADA, a 15% weight loss in six months is quite impressive in type 2 diabetes. In particular, if we combine that with, again, I was about to say almost the usual approximately 1.6% lowering in A1c. Again, this is six months, not in the longer studies. I know that at least one of you will ask into the safety and tolerability profile, and I do want to spend a little bit of time, if I can get the slide, on the withdrawal rate of what we saw with the Caglosema. You obviously see the nausea rates, the vomiting rates, based on what we've seen during this week's ADA. It's not surprising data in a phase one slash two trial, but there has been some concern expressed about the high withdrawal rates, 34% in the highest dose.

This is simply because of trial technicalities, because with this very powerful biology and an attempt to really push the dose escalation, we basically would do patients from the study if they did not want to dose escalate, which basically meant that people who felt that they had already lost more than 20% of their body weight, they did not need to go to the next dose. Not necessarily because they saw side effects, but rather because they basically didn't want to lose more weight. They opted to not escalate the dose, which basically meant that they had to exit the trial. So there's a little bit of technicality in interpreting this data. When we look at the overall tolerability profile, when we model what we can do in terms of those titration in phase three, we assess that we will have a safety tolerability profile on par with Cagrosera, which means that it's expected to be on par with that obligory.

So a really, really strong efficacy profile, both on weight loss, glycemic control, but also potentially a very strong safety profile and tolerability profile.

We are conducting a quite broad development program, obviously in obesity. There is a focus on weight loss. There is also a focus on immediate comorbidities, as we see it in MEs 3 and 5, which is sleep apnea and near osteoarthritis focused. So you've seen combination trial or basket trial from some of our competitors. We've opted to do individualized trials. So some trials focusing just on the weight loss. Some of the initial trials focusing on sleep apnea and knee osteoarthritis.

And then obviously, and I think this is important, we aim to show the same weight loss as we have shown with the subcutaneous treatment in an oral space. We'll demonstrate that starting with AMACE-9, which is our oral Sanagam-type study. It's only one study. And that's basically because we aim to have it on the market at the same time as the injection, and we can bridge the safety data and some of the other data from the subcutaneous program to the oil program, just like we've done with semaglutide. And that really calls for a very strong offering. Again, I can only quote the data that we have at six months. In obesity, 24% weight loss. In diabetes, 15% weight loss.

And a lowering of A1c of 1.7. So delivered in both subcutaneous but also an oral profile. We'll have a cardiovascular study. It's not the usual three or four or five-month study. It's actually a study focusing on heart failure. We do believe that there is too little focus on the impact of heart failure, both from an ordemnative perspective, but also in terms of what we've seen with semaglutide in this space. So therefore, we pursue that really very focused with amicretin. And this is an outcome study. It's not a functionality study. It's a true outcome study. And then obviously, we have the type 2 diabetes program as well. UBT251, super exciting acquisition. You've seen the high-level data.

Obviously, I have to call out that in this study testing, three doses or actually four-dose regimen of UBT251 versus placebo, this is conducted in Chinese patients and in China only. And that does lead to an expected lower weight loss than what we would see from a global population. We've seen that in our studies, our competitors have as well. Rule of thumb is that you expect an Asian population to maybe lose two-thirds of the weight loss as compared to what you would expect to see in a global population. And therefore, when we do our modeling, just as we've seen for another tri-agonist during this week's ADA, we expect to see similar weight loss.

So the 19% could translate to what we've seen from our competitors. Of course, we have to show that in phase three, but really exciting weight loss potential. What is equally exciting is that in the face of that big, big weight loss potential, we actually see a safety and tolerability profile that is very, very attractive.

So, sorry, this is the weight loss. I just tend to rant without looking at the slides. And so obviously a 19% weight loss or 20% weight loss in the highest dose in this population and quite a number or proportion of patients, 50% of patients reaching more than 20% weight loss in this all Asian population. We expect to see, as I said, substantially more weight loss in a global population comparable to that what we've seen from our competitors. At the same time, you've seen the data today, those of you who went to the poster, a really, really attractive tolerability profile, very low withdrawal rates, even at the highest dose, 0% withdrawal rate due to adverse events.

A lot of you have said, well, maybe there's also a bias in an all Asian population from that perspective. I just want to say we've done a number of studies, our competitors have done a number of studies in Asia over the years. There are withdrawals also in those populations. So I think this is reflective of a good safety and tolerability profile, and when we look at the actual adverse events, it looks really, really attractive and very competitive. We are currently investigating UBT 251 now in a global population, which basically means that we intend to initiate phase three in short order.

Not giving the timelines, but aiming to have regulatory submissions and NODs around the turn of this decade. Briefly on R&D milestones, obviously you heard a lot about Cagvisemma, you heard a lot about UBT, you heard a lot about Senegamtide. I think for Cagvisemma what is next is Redefine 11. That is the study where we're taking all of the learnings to really look at the weight loss potential of Cagvisemma. That study will read out in Q1 of next year, which is approximately a time of launch of CACWASEMMA, expecting the U. S. regulatory approval later this year.

We will see a continuous presence and initiation of phase 1 study in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes that is not shown in this slide. But you will get more details and information on that if you attend Capital Markets Day. In U. S. for diabetes, we expect to see regulatory approval for 25 milligrams of Ocempec, all Ocempec later this year, which will obviously also be exciting. In rare disease, I just want to call that out. I know it's a diabetes conference, but we expect to see regulatory approval of MiMate in the U. S. , and obviously we intend to do the regulatory submission of it's evoke, we're expecting a decision next year. Then obviously, just advertising a little bit for what is immediately ahead of us, in Q3, we expect to see the readout of the SUZ trial.

This is the first of the free cardiovascular outcome trials that we do with CELTIVECUMAP. The SUZ trial specifically is in patients with established cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, and established inflammation. And the intent is basically to show improvement on three-point mesh with the intervention. It is well established that increased IL-6 or increased inflammation is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

We do know that more than 2 million patients live in U. S. with established cardiovascular disease and increased inflammation, And therefore, huge unmet need because there's no treatment available.

This is driving high levels of mortality, high levels of stroke, myocardial infarction, and so on. And therefore, if an intervention can improve that, the potential is tremendous. What we seen from silicevecimab is up to 90 lowering in CRP as a proxy for inflammation in such a population We also seen a safety and tolerability profile which is important with anti treatment that is really attractive So in phase two no increased risk of severe infections no meaningful neutropenia no meaningful impact on liver or dyslipidemia So really, really potentially attractive safety and tolerability profile, but also a potential for really impacting outcomes for patients through reduction in cardiovascular events, MACE, that is myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death.

So really exciting. I think really also I have to call out high risk. This would be a first. And while we obviously await this data with high anticipation, it is a first in class. And that carries a risk that you have to take into consideration. But more to come in Q3.

I think with that, we're going to Q&A. Great. Thank you, Martin. Thank you, Mike. And as I said, we have around 25 minutes for Q&A. And Carson is also joining us here on stage.

So I really don't want to talk either good or bad about my competitor, but I have to disagree with you that they look similar. So, I think you're correct that retazotide showed a 1.7 percentage point reduction in A1c, but the placebo arm showed 0.8 percent reduction. So, when you placebo correct, which we have to do as scientists, the reduction is around 1.1, 1.2 percentage points. Just 1.1, not 1.2. Yeah, all right. 1.1. Fair enough. And this is to be compared with what we've seen just with Kacvizema, which is around 1.6 to 1.8 placebo control.

So I actually don't agree. I think the weight loss was comparable, but on glycemic control, I think Kacvizema seems to stand out. And I would say the safety and tolerability profile with CAC with SEMA also appears to be more attractive. Obviously, in direct comparisons, you know my caveats around that, but I don't think I fully buy into the premise of this is comparable between the two. I actually think in type 2 diabetes, CAC with SEMA stands out both on efficacy and safety and tolerability.

Thank you, Martin.

Yeah, absolutely. So we're not going into too much detail when we talk about which indication we will pursue. I think your question is super relevant, so we will not necessarily do what has been done for semaglutide, disabotide, retazotide, cacosema for that matter. I think we'll look at really targeting these opportunities to where the biology warrants it, maybe starting with higher baseline BMIs. As we've already seen, these biologists have really, really big weight loss potential. If you have a baseline BMI of 27 or 30 for that matter, you don't need a 25-30% weight loss.

And therefore, we'll probably, for both of them, be looking at maybe even going towards higher BMIs. When it comes to comorbidities, we'll obviously look at the biologists. We know what GLP-1 does and has the potential to do. So the triagony is containing glucagon or addressing the glucagon biology. It makes sense to go into, for example, MASH. We saw data today with another compound. I don't want to discuss their weight loss and their safety profile, but the data on the liver looked really, really interesting. But you also saw a lot of discussions during this weekend on the amylin biology, for example, on bone preservation, potentially on other benefits, and taking a differentiated approach. So we're not necessarily, or we are not going to pursue the two assets for the same indications.

We can really, really think about what would be the right patient population to address with these biologists individually.

I wasn't giving numbers. I was giving examples on some patients actually felt that they had lost enough weight. It was very clear that a lot of them obviously were due to adverse events. We had not optimized the titration that we'll do in phase three, but quite a high number also decided to leave for other reasons, including that they had reached a weight loss that was sufficient for them. Don't try to match the numbers because I was not giving numbers.

Yeah, so it will be a global launch. I think at one point or the other, we had said that maybe we will launch the dual chamber for US and do a co-formulation for the rest of the world. That strategy has changed. We will basically, without the co-formulations with the dual chamber, be able to launch this globally. So that's what we're pursuing.

I would say not necessarily more challenging, but you have to be more mindful of what you do. For us, these dynamics are not different than when we had the same dialogues in type 2 diabetes 10 years ago, 15 years ago. So you saw improvements coming in, and you also saw drop-in of other therapies. In our cardiovascular outcome studies, we five years ago, three years ago, had dialogue on drop-in on SGLT2s and impact and potentially the CB benefit of semagnotide. If you design and conduct the studies correct, then you will be able to take care of that. But you've not seen, I mean, we're doing studies all the time, you've not seen the impact of drop-in in our studies, yet it's obviously something that we monitor.

It's also something that we dialogue with the investigators, and they, in their turn, dialogue with patients on so that we can handle it. Some of it you can potentially also cover from a statistical perspective. I think when it comes to flexible dosing, we have to acknowledge we took our learnings with CAC with SEMA. Flexible dosing has to be employed. You've also seen some data today where forced titration were used and leading to massive dropouts. That's not what you can do specifically from a regulatory perspective, but you have to apply, employ flexible dosing in the right way. So again, we took learnings from CAC with SEMEN. We've taken those learnings into Redefine 11. I think you heard me talk about at the quarterly meeting that we already see the impact of that, and we're taking all of those learnings further into Amicreton, and we'll do that again when we go to the trial agonist.

So I think from a trial conduct perspective, if you do the right planning and you have the right approach, but there is an art to it, it's not more cumbersome, but you have to be mindful of what you do.

So I think the last question is for Mike or Carsten. Your first question, sir. Additional details on tolerability. Oh yeah, sorry. So the poster that was shown today was not ours. It was basically shown by the investigators that worked on the study together with United. And they decided just to look at the dropout rates. When we look at the data, we can only do modeling, transferring the data from phase two in Chinese subjects to phase two first in a Caucasian population and then into phase three. There we never claim to see superiority over, for example, reticicide. It's the same biology, but we see the potential for parity on weight loss plus minus.

And then we see a tolerability profile that, at least in this study and the other data that we have, looks maybe more attractive than what we've seen for another triagonist. I mean, you saw the dropout data. Obviously, it's a small study, and we have to take that into account. Nevertheless, if you look at the actual data, and I've been privy to those data, it looks quite attractive.

Not in these small studies. I mean, it's not true to really make those observations.

Yeah and James thanks for your question on the competitive formula gram I think the important notion is that if you look at our portfolio today then with our injectable Simmer franchise most recently launched Simmer Hydro 7 in the U market We have a highly competitive portfolio in terms of efficacy proven brands go markets and acknowledgement around all the co of that brand And on top of that, then, as you know, we launched the Vigovil Pill. So we heard some hints around convenience of competitive play, and I think the Vigovil Pill has proven with the uptake Mike showed earlier that if you want convenience, then a daily pill like the Vigovil Pill is hard to beat.

So we welcome competition and look to expand the market, and with our portfolio, we are ready for that combined with Kekosema, which will be approved at that point also.

Maybe I can add to that also, James, that from what we hear from the patients, they're after the magnitude of the weight loss and tolerability and the speed of the weight loss. So from the data I saw from our competitor, yes, with one titration, you can get to 19% weight loss, but you need to wait 80 weeks to get there. That's very different than, of course, if the situation was after four weeks, you titrate and then you get to the 19%. So I think patients don't care so much about one or two or three dose changes, but how fast do they get to that percentage weight loss.

And as Carson touched upon, if you look at the products available right now in the market, ours or even our competitors, in fewer weeks, you get to that level weight loss, basically. At very similar, if not better, tolerability. So that's how I look at it from a patient's angle.

Yeah, absolutely. So on dosing, I mean, we have to go back to what we saw with CAGR7. There are a group of people who can titrate these biologists, GLP1 plus amulet biologists, every four weeks as we basically intended. And they had a, in redefine one, a better, i. e. lower side effects profile as compared to WIKOI, those 57%. Then there's a group of people who actually got the bigger weight loss, more than 25%, but who also started to go down in dose, basically because they either lost weight too fast or because they saw side effects. That group of people, you should not recommend to titrate every four weeks. You have to acknowledge that they are super responders, so they should titrate with lower frequency.

And we basically, for convenience, decided every eight weeks. So we now employ that in Redefine 11. As we already discussed, we can see that works, that improves how many patients actually get to the higher doses and stay on those doses with a good safety and tolerability profile. Again, I'm looking at it, I'm blinded data, I can't see weight loss, but I can see how many patients go to the recommended dose. And we are doing that in the AMAZE program as well. What we are also doing is actually adding an extra dose step, acknowledging that the dose steps chosen in phase one and two were maybe slightly too ambitious. And again, that makes us quite confident that we will see the weight loss potential that we've already discussed in type 2 diabetes, also the general tumor control, but with a solubility profile comparable to that of cacosema.

And then on MLIN biology, I mean, jury's still out. You've heard me talk a lot about, in particular when it comes to cardiovascular outcomes, I do not think, actually, I think I know that a GLP-1 is not just a GLP-1 semanglutide, for example, I have to assume it must be the same for eminent biology. We've seen one acid with a weight loss comparable to cagulantide, but with low dose response on the higher doses, whereas we can actually see that if we increase the dose of cagulantide, we can get to higher weight losses. There's another competitor that has seen a very high weight loss, but where we are a little bit in doubt of what the tolerability profile will look like, because at some doses, they saw a really good tolerability profile.

At others, they looked at tolerability profiles that resembled GLP-1s. And you don't want a 19% weight loss if you get the same tolerability profile as a GLP-1, because then it's just for a patient and other GLP-1. The promise has to be that you get to your desired weight loss with a better tolerability profile. And that is where we see caugulantide right now stand a little bit out.

Absolutely. So I think the jury is still out if it matters the specificity for amin versus calcitonin. And they are all slightly different. There's also a difference between cagrillentide and senagantide, and that's where I've seen the most data close-in. They appear to have the same weight loss potential, the same tolerability potential. Some are saying you want more calcitonin for bone preservation, maybe. Others are saying you want more amlin for better weight loss and better tolerability. I'm not sure we've seen those differences pan out. So what we're doing is basically to ensure that we have a portfolio of amlin biology that caters to basically both.

So, yeah, really good question. I think as long as there's a regulatory requirement, we'll have to continue doing the principle control studies. For better words, we have to do active comparison for Kegosema with the individual monosuppies. We don't mind doing that. Our Our aim is to take differentiated products to the market, so we've already shown that Cagruzema is a step up vis-à-vis semaglutide and caglutide and motorcycles.

So you mean, can I say my diabetes? Basically, because we need to have the reimagined data, sorry, redefined free data before we can do the regulatory submission.

So, I mean, obviously we've been curious about once-monthly. You also saw that we were interested in that specific asset. That being said, I'm not sure that the data were as compelling as we had hoped for, in particular on the tolerability side, but also a little bit on the efficacy side. I think the efficacy side is a matter of dosing, and maybe they will see bigger weight loss in phase three, but they really have to think about their titration because the once-punchly tolerability was not as attractive as I would have expected. And to give patients something in a once-monthly setting, the proposition has to be that it is a very attractive tolerability profile.

So we're also pursuing less frequent dosing. Obviously, part of what we just discussed can be mitigated by even longer half-lives. You see us taking once-monthly acid into phase one this year, and we can, if everything goes right, I will now turn the call over to management for the market, and I will be able to compete in that space in a meaningful way. But again, the tolerability profile has to be better than what we've seen.

So we've got to realize not any peptide lends itself to the SNAC technology. That being said, we are obviously pursuing an oral version of UBT251. I just want to advertise we're also doing oral-senagantide, as we've just discussed, an oral version of enamelin. And then we have actually a small molecule, which is the ACSL5 inhibitor that started phase one a couple of months ago. And I was basically making a reference that the biologies that we are playing around with and have expertise in can do multiple different things, and we will not shy away from pursuing and following the science in those biologies. So that was the reference.

All right, we have to cut it here, but thanks a lot for joining this NOVO NORDISK Investor event at the ADA of 2026 in New Orleans. Thanks Mike, thanks Martin, and thanks Karsten, thanks all for joining, and there will also be a couple of minutes afterwards to discuss with management. Thank you very much.