Amgen reported a strong Q2 2026, with revenue exceeding $10 billion, driven by 22 products with double-digit growth, and raised its full-year 2026 guidance. Management emphasized confidence in its portfolio and pipeline and downplayed competitive threats from new oral PCSK9 and other LP(a) candidates. Total revenue grew 10% YoY to over $10 billion, led by strong performance from six key growth drivers (e.g., Repatha, Avenity, Tespire).
Amgen reported a strong Q2 2026, with revenue exceeding $10 billion, driven by 22 products with double-digit growth, and raised its full-year 2026 guidance. Management emphasized confidence in its portfolio and pipeline and downplayed competitive threats from new oral PCSK9 and other LP(a) candidates. Total revenue grew 10% YoY to over $10 billion, led by strong performance from six key growth drivers (e.g., Repatha, Avenity, Tespire).
Executives emphasized strong portfolio breadth, raised full-year guidance, and expressed confidence in durable long-term growth driven by key growth drivers and pipeline progress.
Total revenue grew 10% YoY to over $10 billion, led by strong performance from six key growth drivers (e.g., Repatha, Avenity, Tespire).
Raised FY2026 revenue guidance to $38.2-39.4 billion and non-GAAP EPS to $22.30-23.50, citing continued momentum.
Management pushed back on competitive threats from Merck's oral PCSK9 and Novartis's LP(a) study data, citing superior clinical data and efficacy for its own products.
Management highlighted investments in technology, data, and AI to advance medicines more efficiently, including establishing a frontier AI laboratory to bring agentic workflows to discovery research, augmenting scientists' insights and ideas.
Repatha positioning as first therapy beyond statins with unrivaled evidence. Executives emphasized strong portfolio breadth, raised full-year guidance, and expressed confidence in durable long-term growth driven by key growth drivers and pipeline progress.
Capital expenditures were $500 million in the quarter, driven by investments across U.S. manufacturing sites in North Carolina, Ohio, and Puerto Rico, reflecting ongoing infrastructure expansion.
Executives emphasized strong portfolio breadth, raised full-year guidance, and expressed confidence in durable long-term growth driven by key growth drivers and pipeline progress.
“we can expect perhaps directional insight, but not decisional perspective owing to the superior properties of our molecule”
“those therapies that are FDA approved are by and large local and symptomatic management therapies”
| 지표 | 기간 | 범위 | 중간값 | 상태 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EPS | FY2026 | $22.30–$23.50above 컨센서스 대비 | $22.90 | RAISED |
| Revenue | FY2026 | $38.2B–$39.4Babove 컨센서스 대비 | $38.8B | RAISED |
Merck's newly approved oral PCSK9 inhibitor has food restrictions and Amgen does not see it as a direct threat, viewing the market as under-penetrated and Repatha's strong efficacy data and injectable compliance as durable advantages. — This challenges the bear thesis that oral PCSK9s will cannibalize the injectable market, indicating potential pricing and share resilience for Repatha.
“the data behind Repatha are unrivaled. It is the category leader, and indeed, the data are unrivaled.”
Great. This is Chris Ahn for Terrence. Thank you for taking our questions. Just a two-part question on PCSK9. Merck's Oreo PCSK9 recently got approved. Can you compare and contrast the key label language differences from that process? And also, can you comment on the contracted dynamics now that there's an Oreo option? Thank you.
Murdo, why don't you... Yeah, let me take that one. Obviously, the two labels really just don't compare. You have Repatha, as Jay mentioned, over 50,000 patients on clinical trial experience reflected in a broad label that includes primary and secondary prevention. Repatha can be used as monotherapy or in combination with statins. Ten years of real-world experience reflected in data that we've presented at recent scientific meetings. So, you know, as we say, the data behind Repatha are unrivaled. It is the category leader, and indeed, the data are unrivaled. I think, though, what's important to remember is that this is a huge market with a lot of patients that are still not at their LDL cholesterol goal, and additional therapies, much like when Inclisiran entered the market, are treating other patients that are not necessarily competing for share with Repatha. And so we think there's a lot of education that still needs to be done. We think that the guidelines are important in this market. And we think that we are able to drive utilization in this market more effectively given the compelling data that we generated on Basilius. The other thing that we've experienced with Repatha as we look at persistency data in the market and the real-world analysis is an every two-week injection is a really easy regimen for patients to adhere to. And we've seen limitations with orals, including with statins, where daily oral therapy does have some compliance and some adherence challenges to it. We're also seeing in the label with the new PCSK9 approval, that there are indeed food restrictions that you have to be careful with what you eat in the first 30 minutes after you take that medicine. So, you know, I think this oral versus injectable is too simplistic a compare and you really have to look at why do you take an LDL cholesterol medicine in the first place and is to prevent a first or second heart attack and we've demonstrated that with very clear evidence for Repatha.
Amgen sees a competitor (Novartis) LP(a) study readout as offering only 'directional insight' due to perceived superior efficacy (95% vs 70% reductions) and a stricter patient population (Lp(a) > 200 nmol/L).
Thanks for the interest, Taylor. Again, with the huge unmet need affecting so many humans globally and the American Heart Association recommending testing, it's understandable that there'd be so much attention on LP little a, and we quite like our chances with El Paso Ren. and its profile. What can we expect from the Pella-Carson data? We're following it with interest. We can expect perhaps directional insight, but not decisional perspective owing to the superior properties of our molecule that delivered 95% LpA reduction compared to, say, 70% with that molecule and also some differences in the study design, which we've just described. Great. Next question, Julianne.