Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. And welcome to the Eli Lilly Q1 2017 Earnings Call. For the conference, all the participants are in a listen-only mode. There will be an opportunity for your questions. Instructions will be given at that time. As a reminder, today's call is being recorded. I'll turn the conference now over to your host, Mr. Dave Ricks. Please go ahead, sir. David A. Ricks - Eli Lilly & Co.: Good morning. Thank you for joining Eli Lilly & Company's First Quarter 2017 Earnings Call. I'm Dave Ricks, Lilly's President and CEO. Joining me on today's call are Derica Rice, our Chief Financial Officer; Dr. Jan Lundberg, President of Lilly Research Labs; Enrique Conterno, President of Lilly Diabetes and Lilly USA.; Dr. Sue Mahoney, President of Lilly Oncology; Jeff Simmons, President of Elanco Animal Health; and I'd like to extend a special welcome to Christi Shaw, who joined us earlier this month as President of Lilly Bio-Medicines. We're also joined by Kristina Wright, Chris Ogden and Phil Johnson of the IR team. During this conference call, we anticipate making projections and forward-looking statements based on our current expectations. Our actual results could differ materially due to a number of factors, including those listed on Slide three and as outlined in our latest Forms 10-K and 10-Q filed with the SEC. The information we provide about our products and pipelines is for the benefit of the investment community; it is not intended to be promotional and it is not sufficient for prescribing decisions. Before discussing key events for the quarter, I'll start with a summary of our progress on our strategic objectives since our earnings call in January. Starting with grow revenue. Q1, we generated worldwide revenue growth of 7%, which was driven by 9%…

Certainly. And first we'll go to Tim Anderson with Bernstein. Please go ahead. Timothy Minton Anderson - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC: Yes. Hi.

Tim Anderson, do you have a question? Timothy Minton Anderson - Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC: Yes. Sorry about that. My question is on abemaciclib and your latest thinking about the ability to show that your drug is more efficacious than palbo. Because your pivotal trial didn't have Palbo as a comparator, any efficacy comparisons can really only be made on the side-by-side basis. And naturally, that has certain limitations. So assume that the difference in abema would have to be quite big to really be perceived as a better product. I this something that you think is achievable? I'd like to your latest thinking on that. And then a payer question. If you could just talk about payer trends and rebating trends in SGLT2 category. If you addressed that earlier, I was on another call so I apologize. And on Cyramza, any additional color on, you I think mentioned U.S. pricing erosion, which is unusual with a medical benefit drug in the U.S. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Okay, Tim, thank you for the questions. So, Sue, if you'll handle the first question that he had on abemaciclib and then the third one on Cyramza. Enrique, if you'd like to comment on the SGLT2 pricing. Susan Mahony - Eli Lilly & Co.: Hi, Tim. Thanks for the question on abemaciclib. As you say, there are no comparative studies of the CDK-4 and 6 inhibitors. We believe that it's going to be important that we look at the totality of the data across multiple trials as we look at these agents. I think I've been consistently saying that we believe that we could have a best-in-class CDK-4 and 6 inhibitor. And I continue to believe that based on the attributes of the molecule as well as, as…

And that would be Seamus Fernandez with Leerink. Please go ahead. Mr. Fernandez, your line is open, if you have a question.

Sorry. I was on mute. Thanks for taking the questions. Just a couple of quick ones. First, on abemaciclib, can you guys talk a little bit about what you think is a differentiated response rate in the setting, whether it be for MONARCH-3? Again, my understanding is that we're seeing in combination with aromatase inhibitors response rates between 52% and 55%. So it seems like the response rate dynamic is something that you're focusing in on. Love to just better understand what you see as a uniquely meaningful response rate, or if you're really just focused on the monotherapy response rate that you see with abemaciclib and we already knew. The second question. When I look at the revenue that was generated relative to the scripts for Basaglar, it certainly came in a bit below our expectations. Just trying to get a better sense of what the dynamics are in that market, in particular, that would have the revenue come in below those expectations. And that's also factoring in the stocking that occurred in the fourth quarter, so I don't see that as a full explanation. And then lastly, in terms of the dynamics with baricitinib, some of the questions that we get from investors are the reasons why Lilly chose to incorporate the language in the press release with regard to its disagreement with the Agency. That seems to imply that Lilly will pursue all avenues before being forced to do additional clinical studies. So just trying to get a better sense of why you chose to incorporate that language into the press release. Thanks so much. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Okay, Seamus. Thanks for the questions. So, Sue, we'll start with you for abemaciclib, then the question on overall response rate, Enrique for Basaglar revenue…

That will be Gregg Gilbert with Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead.

Thanks, team. One two-parter here. First, when you announced the bari delay, you reiterated your 5% revenue growth goal. My question is, since it will be harder to get there without bari and assuming that doesn't show up in that timeframe, what are the caveats that you would offer in terms of reaching that goal without bari other than the Alimta caveat you've mentioned before? So hoping for a little bit more granularity underpinning your confidence in achieving that. And secondly, on Animal Health, can you go a little bit deeper into the trends in the quarter, perhaps with and without acquisition? And, Jeff, any sort of headwinds/tailwinds you'd want us to understand in the quarter and as it relates for the rest of the year for your business? Thanks. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Gregg, thank you for the questions. Derica, we'll start out with you for the long-term growth question. And over to you, Jeff, for the Animal Health question. Derica? Derica W. Rice - Eli Lilly & Co.: Good morning, Gregg. And thanks for your question. As it relates to the mid-term guidance of achieving a minimum of 5% on average revenue growth between 2016 and the end of the decade, there are no new additional caveats that I can offer, Gregg. We feel as confident about achieving that goal today as we did when we put that guidance out last year in July. Recall that we've always said that the growth prospects for Lilly did not reside or rest on a single asset. It really is about the strength across the portfolio of opportunities that we talked about. And up to now, we launched seven new products, and eight if you include Olumiant in Europe. So we feel very good about our growth prospects…

Thanks. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: We can go to our next caller, please.

And we'll go to Andrew Baum with Citi. Please go ahead.

Thank you. A couple of questions. You obviously showed some very significant improvement in your gross margin during the quarter, (38:12) manufacturing efficiencies. Could you just separate out mix versus manufacturing? And then within manufacturing, procurement yield and so on to help us understand how far those will go here? And then second, on Jardiance. Could you just outline the rate limiting steps for this product, both in terms of class awareness and obviously the pending CANVAS data to grow the awareness of the class? And then secondly, in terms of education of physicians, the potential advantages, what can be done by you in order to break down barriers to accelerate uptake? Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Andrew, thank you for the questions. Derica, we'll go to you for the question on the gross margin percent and then Enrique for the Jardiance questions. Derica? Derica W. Rice - Eli Lilly & Co.: Hi, Andrew. And this question I really have to give kudos to our manufacturing team. The gross margin improvement is really driven by lowering our per unit cost. It's not due to mix effect and that means that it should be sustainable going forward. Do recall also that in the second half of the year, you're going to see negative pressure on our gross margins because we began to feel the impact of the next round of patent expiries. So we will have lost Strattera and Effient in the U.S. So that's what brings down the drag that we expect in the second half. But, again, what's helping us to weather that is by the manufacturing team absolutely reducing our per unit costs. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Thanks, Derica. Enrique? Enrique A. Conterno - Eli Lilly & Co.: Sure. Let me first provide…

And we'll go to John Boris, SunTrust. Please go ahead.

Thanks for taking the questions. In light of the successful launch of Basaglar across your diabetes franchise, strategically is this a consideration to partner with other companies for biosimilars across possibly oncology or possibly across your immunology franchise with a product like Humira? Second question on productivity gains. For Derica, what have you learned about YZ that makes you confident as you prepare for another loss of exclusivity in 2018 for Cialis that you're prepared to navigate through that? And any qualitative commentary you can give on the consensus earnings growth of 7% in 2018? I know you haven't given guidance there, but certainly a topical question. And then lastly, on Jardiance. Certainly the product had some pretty significant renal benefits. Are you doing anything with the Agency to further quantify the benefits for the Agency to possibly go back to them to try and secure that within the label of Jardiance? Thanks. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Thanks, John. Thank you for the questions. We'll go to Dave for the question on our interest in moving more into biosimilars, Derica for the productivity question, what we learned in YZ that can help for next year with 2018. And then Enrique for the Jardiance renal question. Dave? David A. Ricks - Eli Lilly & Co.: Thanks. Thanks, John. Well, I think we've addressed this question before, but just to reiterate. Basaglar is a great fit for us because we already have an asset base to make the product, we have a commercial investment that can sell the product and we have devices that are world-class that the product goes in. So it's really a drop-in to a broader insulin play and rounds out an important part of the portfolio we weren't participating in, which is the innovative basal…

And that will be Jami Rubin with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Jami Rubin - Goldman Sachs & Co.: Thank you. Just a few questions. This is to Dave and Derica. Is it safe to assume that in reiterating your medium-term guidance out to 2020 that you do ascribe some value to baricitinib? Or, Derica, you also just said that Lilly's not dependent on any one single product but a portfolio of products. So if you could clarify that. Secondly, just curious to know your plans for baricitinib in the other indications such as AD, lupus, psoriatic arthritis. I know those are studies that are still early, Phase 2. Are those indications on hold until pending positive resolution on RA, or is it possible that you would go ahead with those plans? Is there a scenario where you decide not to go further with that RA if FDA is requiring large trials that would be expensive and might mean being no longer the first and best-in-class drug on the market? And then just lastly, Dave, solanezumab, unfortunately, that was a very expensive setback, but that happens. Now we have the baricitinib setback. At what point can you justify to yourself a much more substantial restructuring initiative that really focuses on the company's cost structure? Yes, we acknowledge this quarter we did see good operating margin improvement. But going out and looking at where Lilly's margins are today relative to the industry average, you've got a long way to go to reach parity. So just wondering if you could share your thoughts on that and at what point you actually start to get more aggressive on the margin side. Thanks very much. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Great, Jami. Thanks for your questions. So we'll have Derica address the…

And we'll go to Steve Scala with Cowen. Please go ahead. Steve Scala - Cowen & Co. LLC: Thank you. A few questions. First on Jardiance. Would you speak specifically to the disconnect between revenue and scripts in Q1? I'm not sure that was fully explained. Secondly, I appreciate that you have not met with FDA yet on baricitinib. But based solely on what's in the CRL and Lilly's interpretation of it, when would Lilly be in a position to answer FDA questions? Would that be a 2017 event or a 2018 event? And then lastly, would you elaborate on the dynamics around the JUNIPER trial of abemaciclib in lung cancer? The primary completion has moved a couple times now. One interpretation could be that Lilly is cutting its losses and giving up. But maybe you can clarify. Thank you. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Thank you for the questions. So, Enrique, over to you for the Jardiance question on the disconnect between TRx and revenue. Christi, for the question on the baricitinib complete response letter. And over to Sue for the JUNIPER study with abemaciclib for lung cancer. Enrique? Enrique A. Conterno - Eli Lilly & Co.: Well, we don't think there's a disconnect between TRx and revenue. The quarter for Jardiance was pretty clean, so we didn't have changes in estimates when it comes to rebates and discounts. Let's recall, and of course, in the case of Jardiance, we share 50/50 the gross margin for the product with BI the way basically what we book as revenue. And right now I think it's fair to say that the current revenue basically is a good reflection of the underlying scripts. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Great. Thanks, Enrique. Christi? Christi Shaw - Eli Lilly & Co.: Yeah. In terms of the bari timing, it's really, we can't give you an estimate on whether it's this year or next year until we meet with the FDA, which we are hoping we will do within the next 60 days. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Christi, thank you very much. Sue? Susan Mahony - Eli Lilly & Co.: Yeah. With regards to the JUNIPER study, we are continuing with that study and very interested in the role of CDK4 and CDK6 in KRAS mutation-positive lung cancer. We have made some changes to the study to ensure enrollment and to ensure that it hits the high bar given the changes that we've seen in FDA guidance and labeling on erlotinib, but we continue that study and are actively enrolling it. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Great. Thank you, Sue. John, next caller, please.

And we'll go to Chris Schott with JPMorgan. Please go ahead.

Great. Thanks very much. Just had two questions here, both on diabetes. Maybe first on Humalog. With biosimilars coming to market in 2018, 2019, can you really compare and contrast some of the dynamics of the rapid-acting market versus what we're just seeing right now with the basal market where you've launched Basaglar and it's done very well from a share perspective? And the second question was more broadly just discussing longer-term, your latest longer-term views on diabetes pricing. There seems to be concerns about a market that's been in flux over the past few years. Lilly has obviously benefited from its broader portfolio, but your competitors have struggled. So, of course, just longer term, do you see the pricing dynamics continuing to erode or even get worse? Or could we see dynamics stabilize a bit here as we've gone through at least a few of these categories pretty aggressive price competition? Does that at some point stabilize, or are you preparing for an environment where things continue to be challenging? Thanks very much. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Thank you, Chris, for the questions. Enrique, they're both for you. Enrique A. Conterno - Eli Lilly & Co.: Sure. So the first question is an interesting one because, clearly, we are on both sides of that equation. So you can imagine, we're going to take all the learnings of the launch of Basaglar as we think about how do we ensure that we protect our Humalog franchise. It is fair to say that Humalog has slightly different make up in terms of – we think of the product, as you know, it's not just rapid-acting, but it's also the mixtures, which are about 30% of volume. Clearly, we do have a strong position when it comes to payers.…

We'll go to Geoff Meacham with Barclays. Please go ahead.

Hey, guys. Good morning and thanks for taking the question. On Taltz, I wonder if you can talk about the new-to-brand share trends in the U.S., say, over the past six months. Are there many plans that you're still have don't have formulary status in? And then in Europe, can you speak to countries that you expect to come on board fully for this calendar year? And then on baricitinib. I know it's hard to say, but were extension studies for all the pivotals part of the filing? I'm just trying to figure out what data haven't yet been submitted or analysis not yet done that you could add that would be new to the CRL. Thanks. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Great, Geoff. Thank you very much. Christi, if you want to take the first question on the Taltz new-to-brand trends. And feel free if you want to try the second question, we're happy to help with that one as well. Christi Shaw - Eli Lilly & Co.: Sure. So, coming new to Lilly, obviously the data we saw in Taltz in these studies plays out in the marketplace. It's really remarkable, the PASI 100 data and how physicians are seeing the benefits play out with patients in their offices. And that's what's really leading to the NBRx share gains and growth. The growth continues. As you probably know, we passed Enbrel early last year. We passed Cosentyx later in the year. We continue to believe that the IL-17s are the best-in-class and a huge market opportunity for us as we close the NBRx share on Stelara. And that, in spite of not having a lot of formulary access with all of the payers. So we continue to work on that. So, yes, there is opportunity to grow in that area. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: In terms of the data that was submitted, Geoff. So there were data obviously from the four pivotal studies as well as from data (1:01:05) over the course of the review from the extension study. There is additional data that we have generated in the extension study that we have not submitted to the FDA. As Christi talked about earlier, we'll look forward to meeting with the FDA here in the next 60 days or so to see if any of the additional data that we have could be helpful to them in their consideration of the safety concerns that they raise in the complete response letter. John, if we can go to the next caller, please?

Sure. We'll go to Tony Butler with Guggenheim Securities. Please go ahead.

Yes. Thanks very much and good morning. Two brief questions. Sue, Cyramza in Japan has been perhaps the better geographic growth driver for the product. However, in quarter-over-quarter, it does look as if it had peaked in Q4. And I'm curious if that is, in fact, the case being down in Q1? And, Enrique, again, back to I guess back to Steve Scala's question on Jardiance. Also, or similarly, the Q4 to Q1, at least Lilly's share of the growth profit is effectively flat and slightly down. Is it because demand is in a lower revenue-generating channel, for example, perhaps more Medicaid patients are being prescribed your product that maybe those from managed care? Thanks very much. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Great. Tony, thanks for the question. Sue for the Cyramza Japan question and then Enrique for the Jardiance follow up. Susan Mahony - Eli Lilly & Co.: Hi, Tony. Thanks very much for the question on Cyramza in Japan. You're right, it is going very well in Japan. The quarter-on-quarter is just the timing. If you look at last year, you would have seen the same dynamics. What we are continuing to see is strong growth of Cyramza in Japan. And the gastric cancer indication right now has a market share of 57%. In fact, I think Cyramza is one of the most successful oncology launches now in Japan. We also are now seeing uptake in both the lung and the colorectal cancer indications. There's quite a high level – as you know, the prevalence in Japan of gastric cancer is a lot higher than the U.S. and we are seeing a lot of overlap between uses of Cyramza in gastric cancer and those that treat colorectal cancer. And so we see a good opportunity for uptake in that indication, too. We're currently seeing that and also in lung. So we feel very good about the continued uptake of Cyramza in Japan. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Thank you, Sue. Enrique? Enrique A. Conterno - Eli Lilly & Co.: Yeah, there's really not an issue when it comes, Tony, to segment mix. We had in Q4 of 2016 a positive benefit, roughly about $15 million worth of Lilly revenue due to changes in the estimates of rebates, discounts and co-pay cards. So that's basically why that comparison doesn't follow the script trend. If anything, we should see basically improved pricing when it comes to Jardiance just because we made some changes to our co-pay cards. So we are going to be less reliant on them as time goes through. So that should basically give us some benefit over time when it comes to the nebulized prices that we see. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Thank you, Enrique. John, if we can go to the next caller?

And that will be David Risinger with Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. David, your line is open, if you're on mute maybe? David R. Risinger - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Yes, I'm restrained, as many of my peers. And instead, Phil, I'll follow your instructions and ask two questions. First, Dave, could you please discuss near-term M&A opportunities to acquire small biotech companies with new launch prospects in order to enhance your new launch pipeline flow late decade? And then second, Enrique, I was actually surprised with Jardiance that, given its extraordinary cardiovascular benefit, which is actually better than many drugs that are solely approved for cardiovascular disease, I would have thought that Lilly would have gone to payers and said to payers, we need to reduce our rebate payments to you. Obviously, from an ethical standpoint, Jardiance has to be tier two irrespective of rebates. And so I guess I'm just hoping that you could provide a little bit more color on why Lilly has to enhance rebates for such an extraordinary drug? Thank you. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Great, Dave. Thank you for the two questions. Dave, we'll go to you for the near-term M&A question and back to Enrique for the Jardiance question. David A. Ricks - Eli Lilly & Co.: Yeah. Thanks, Dave. Well, our posture on M&A really hasn't changed. It's a top priority for deployment of capital. Of course, we are very interested in targets that would enhance our position, whether it be pipeline or otherwise, in oncology, in diabetes, in immunology or in Alzheimer's or pain. When we've seen those things, we've moved quickly. I think CoLucid is an example of that. The reality in the world, though, is, I think, that there are constraints. And one of them…

And that would be Umer Raffat with Evercore. Please go ahead.

Yes. Thanks for taking my question. So I wanted to ask directly, do you think you need a new trial for bari, number one? And, number two, in a scenario – let's say, there is a scenario where only two milligram dose is approved, do you think bari will be able to get the head-to-head label versus Humira on label? Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: What was the question, Umer? I'm not sure if you cut out or if that was two questions.

I'm so sorry. So let me try again. First of all, I just wanted to ask directly, do you think you need a new trial on bari? And, number two, in a scenario where only two milligram dose is approved, do you think you'll be able to get the superiority language versus Humira on label? Thank you. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Christi, would you like to handle this? Christi Shaw - Eli Lilly & Co.: Sure. So we don't know what we'll need until we actually meet with the FDA. As I said before, we believe in the benefit-risk profile of the four milligrams and the two milligrams across dosage groups. And that's what we continue to see with the data. And we want to make sure that what we provide to the marketplace is something that is effective and safe for the patients that it serves. So, right now, we're looking at a four-milligram and two-milligram and open to the discussions with the FDA. And we'll see how they go and get back to you after that. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Thank you, Christi. David A. Ricks - Eli Lilly & Co.: And just as a reminder, the R&D study just had the four milligram in it against Humira. So I think if that's your question, just remind the group that that was the only dose studied in that particular (1:10:10) analysis. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Okay. Thanks, Dave. John, next caller, please.

And we'll go to Alex Arfaei with BMO Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Thank you, folks, for taking the questions. Most of my questions have been asked. A couple more for Enrique in diabetes. First, on Humalog. How comfortable are you about the sustainability of the exclusive arrangements that you have with payers? Because the economic benefit that you mentioned from the rebates, that's obviously has come under increased scrutiny. So what are the risks there? And then following up, obviously Trulicity is doing well. What is your competitive outlook on the GLP-1 class, particularly from the oral GLP-1 in Phase 3 from Novo? Thank you. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Okay. Alex, thank you very much for the questions. Enrique, again to you. Enrique A. Conterno - Eli Lilly & Co.: Sure. So, clearly as we contract with payers, it's not only the economic benefit, but of course all of the clinical benefits of each one of the products. In the case of Humalog, it's always difficult to say as we go through the contract in season. But I think what we can say is, as we looked at historically, once a payer has made a decision on a particular product, basically once it comes time to renew, they typically have continued with that choice that they initially made, in particular when there are not new entrants basically coming in to the mix. So we see this not only in diabetes, but I think in other therapeutic classes. As you can imagine, if we have a market where we have two major players, in this particular case maybe Lilly and Novo, and we were in dual status and we go to exclusive status, you are switching 50% of the patients. But once somebody is on exclusive status, now you basically – the disruption is significantly higher. And clearly,…

And that will be Vamil Divan with Credit Suisse. Please go ahead. Vamil K. Divan - Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Broker): Great. Thanks so much. So one just follow-up on the diabetes side. Can you give us a sense of the share now for the SGLT2s and the GLP-1s that's coming from primary care physicians as opposed to specialists? I guess if you want to throw the DPP-4s in there as well, that'd be helpful. And then my second question, just on the 2017 guidance, just wanted to clarify. I believe you have not incorporated any expectations around the potential approval from KEYNOTE-021G for Alimta in combination with carbo and Keytruda. Can you just confirm that's correct and would that then be upside if that approval does come next month? Thanks. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Okay, Vamil. Thank you very much for the questions. Enrique, if you'd like to handle the question with regard to split between PCP and specialists for SGLT2s and DPP-4s as well, if you have it. And then, Derica, any comment you have on how the KEYNOTE-021G approval, if that comes through, how it could impact our expectations for 2017. Enrique? Enrique A. Conterno - Eli Lilly & Co.: Yeah, so when it comes to orals and SGLT2s and DPP-4s are pretty alike. We basically see primary care basically driving about 80% of the overall scripts. Now, one thing that we've been watching is basically, what about cardiologists. And what we basically see that is while cardiologists, in the case of Jardiance, are a significant source of authority. And while we have seen an increase, the base of prescribing is extremely, extremely small. I don't have the actual split for the GLP-1s, and I'm cautious about making it because that class has…

That will be Marc Goodman with UBS. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Sue, can you talk about how your oncology strategy's evolved? And what are the key Phase 2 assets we should be focused on? And then second, just on Animal Health, can you tell us what was the impact of the BI sales in the quarter of the acquisition? Thanks. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Hey, Marc, thank you for the question. Sue, for the oncology strategy question and highlights on Phase 2 assets. And then, Jeff, back to you for a commentary on the impact of the BI Vetmedica acquisition and the results for quarter. Sue? Susan Mahony - Eli Lilly & Co.: Sure. Yeah, thanks for the question. Clearly, as we're looking at our strategy, the oncology environment is changing pretty rapidly and we want to make sure that as we're looking at agents, that we're bringing through really agents that are standard of care change or have potential to be standard of care change and to be foundational agents. We believe that we have a number of those. We just launched Lartruvo for soft tissue sarcoma, which is the first agent that has been approved to show an overall survival advantage over standard care in 40 years, and showing an improvement of 12 months nearly in soft tissue sarcoma. So I think that is one that we can say clearly has the potential standard of care changing and foundational. We have abemaciclib data that we're excited about, too. We have a number of assets in our portfolio. We're actually currently going through a strategy review and prioritization which we are looking forward to giving you more details on over the next months. There are a number of agents that we're excited by. I think that we look at our checkpoint inhibitor, prexasertib. Data on…

And we'll go to Jeff Holford with Jefferies. Please go ahead.

Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. So, clearly, Trulicity has been having a great launch and is expected to going forward. But I get a lot of questions from investors just around sustainability of pricing in the GLP-1 segment. So just maybe ask you to gaze into crystal ball a little bit through maybe the upcoming contracting and one or two years out, how you just see that potentially being different from the insulin markets, obviously where pricing pressure's been a bit more difficult. And then the second question, just really going back to baricitinib a little bit and the clinical trial design there. There is quite a lot of crossover in some of those clinical trials and up and down dosing. Just wanted to get any feedback that you can potentially give us on how comfortable the FDA was with that design right from the outset and whether any of this crossover and up and down dosing in the trials was potentially discussed at mid-cycle review? Thank you. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Hey, Jeff, thank you for the questions. Enrique, if you'll comment on Trulicity pricing question. And then, Dave, do you want to take the question for the baricitinib trial time? Enrique? Enrique A. Conterno - Eli Lilly & Co.: Sure. Just on Trulicity. First, our access right now is outstanding. I think it reflects the – given the clinical and business performance of the product, Trulicity is now basically added in most plans. So our access in both commercial and Part D is north of 80%. Unfortunately, I'm unable to provide forward-looking expectations in terms of pricing. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Enrique, thank you. Dave? David A. Ricks - Eli Lilly & Co.: Yeah, and just briefly on baricitinib. You're correct in saying that the program had a number of step ups after the initial placebo-controlled phases. So many patients moved from two to four milligrams or placebo to four (1:21:50) standard in RA studies. And we also in the long-term study everyone rolled into, we had a step-down feature. So we have a lot of data about two versus four, and we look forward to talking to the FDA more about that data in the coming weeks and days. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Thanks, Dave. John, next caller, please.

And we actually have no further questions in queue. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Okay. Let me just give a few seconds to see if someone wants to queue. If not, we'll go to close. So let's give a couple seconds for that, please. Did anyone queue, John?

No further questions coming in. Philip Johnson - Eli Lilly & Co.: Thank you very much. Dave, would you like to go ahead and close out the call? David A. Ricks - Eli Lilly & Co.: Okay. Thanks, Phil. We participate your participation in today's earnings call and interest in the Eli Lilly & Company. As we've discussed before, Lilly is entering a period of growth driven by new product launches. The diversity in our portfolio, our top-line growth prospect and the opportunity for margin expansions over the balance of the decade provide a compelling thesis for investors. I look forward to our continued interactions and keep you informed of our progress. Please follow up with our IR team if you have any questions we didn't address today. Thanks again. Have a good day.

Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude your conference. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.