美女免费一级视频在线观看

As the pharma industry continues to grapple with policy pressures like tariffs and drug pricing measures, the category’s most recent earnings reports shed some light on how drugmakers are faring and how they plan to chart their routes forward.

Several key trends surfaced in drugmakers’ Q2 earnings reports, mostly released over the past month. 

Those included shifts in the obesity race, surprises with some winners and losers, as well as insights into how pharma leaders are thinking about tariffs and President Donald Trump’s ongoing push to lower drug costs.

While several Big Pharma leaders appeared optimistic regarding tariffs and drug pricing, disappointing results for Eli Lilly’s obesity pill data and Vertex’s pain drug underscored some investors’ concerns that biopharma is underperforming this year compared to other sectors, according to BMO senior research analyst Evan Seigerman.

“One of the most interesting [takeaways from Q2 earnings] was that the darling names disappointed,” Seigerman said. “Everyone I’ve spoken to after earnings feels exhausted.”

On the flip side, some surprising wins emerged from players like Pfizer and Gilead Sciences — with the former experiencing a slight comeback after a few tumultuous post-COVID years with 10% year-over-year operational growth.

Tariffs, tariffs, tariffs

For months, Trump has threatened significant tariffs on pharmaceutical imports, most recently claiming they could reach up to 250%. 

However, pharma companies have largely avoided making knee-jerk reactions based on each new tariff conversation, largely since shifting manufacturing to the U.S. would entail a complex, multiyear process.

Some Big Pharma companies factored in tariffs into their Q2 earnings outlooks, with Johnson & Johnson cutting its tariff impact in half from an expected $400 million to $200 million. 

AstraZeneca also noted that it would likely not be impacted significantly by tariffs as it already has a widespread manufacturing base in the U.S. 

Meanwhile, Merck added that the impact from tariffs on the company would likely be “minimal.”

Another factor lessening the threat of tariffs is that even if the Trump administration does move forward with these policies, a new administration could reverse course or choose not to implement them in a few years.

“[Trump] keeps kicking the can down the road, and all these tariffs… would only last as far as the administration,” Seigerman pointed out. “If you’re a pharma company trying to make capital allocation decisions, how do you make those decisions with the thought that tariffs could go away at some point?”

Even as some Big Pharma companies like Merck, J&J, Lilly and Biogen have recently announced plans to invest in U.S. manufacturing, Siegerman explained that the moves were a long time coming and may have less to do with the imminent threat of tariffs.

“There has been a case for high-value biologic and peptide manufacturing [in the U.S. for a while],” he said. “Much is just being reiterated to remind the administration that this is happening.”

Drug pricing demands

In the midst of Q2 earnings season, Trump sent letters to 17 Big Pharma companies demanding that they lower drug costs to match Most Favored Nation pricing or figure out other ways to reduce prices.

Pharma CEOs didn’t shy away from discussing drug pricing on their earnings calls. In fact, many touted one option Trump floated — direct-to-consumer (DTC) platforms, in which drugmakers sell their products directly to patients and bypass middlemen.

In Pfizer’s earnings call, CEO Albert Bourla said that “we think it is a fantastic way to go ahead.”

“[Drugmakers] are all ready to roll up their sleeves and execute something like that,” he said.

Lilly CEO Dave Ricks agreed on that point and with the president about MFN pricing — but wasn’t sure how the industry would tackle it.

“We believe long term, we should rebalance pricing between the U.S. and Europe in terms of who’s bearing the cost for R&D,” Ricks said. “In my career, it’s gotten more and more out of whack. The president’s right to call that out. The question is, ‘How?’”

Ricks pointed to the complexity of the American healthcare pricing system and the need to “deflate the gross-to-net bubble, because there’s this huge artificial thing that needs to get deflated.”

Still, he added, Lilly would be “excited to get into that world… This is something that could make progress under the president’s agenda.”

While pharma appeared somewhat optimistic — or at least not too concerned about drug pricing impacts — Seigerman noted that the drug pricing and tariffs conversation will continue to be an overhang for the industry.

“Pharma will have to be patient when it comes to some of the policy things, because those aren’t going anywhere,” he said.

Obesity race weighed down by disappointing data

When it comes to the major obesity treatment players — Novo Nordisk and Lilly — their earnings reports provided greater insights regarding the closely-watched GLP-1 race. 

While Lilly is currently taking the lead in the space, its most recent data on its daily obesity pill orforglipron has dampened expectations on where it’s headed next.

As for Novo, it has seen its share price decline more than 50% since peaking in 2024, and has been undergoing a corporate restructuring as it takes a backseat to Lilly in the obesity sphere. 

Last quarter, the pharma giant reported that sales of Wegovy were strong, increasing 67% year over year, but noted that it expects lower growth for both Ozempic and Wegovy for the remainder of the year due to the “persistent use” of compounded GLP-1s, as well as slower market expansion. 

As a result, it reduced its full-year guidance three to five percentage points to 8% to 14% at CER.

The company has recently undergone a leadership shuffle as part of its strategic refocusing, with Maziar Mike Doustdar replacing Lars Fruergaard Jørgensen as CEO. 

Ulrich Otte, the company’s head of U.S. marketing, is also no longer in his role and is being replaced by Dave Moore, EVP, U.S. operations as interim lead until a successor is chosen.

Novo has emphasized that the CEO change is meant to sharpen its commercial execution ahead. 

In a statement, spokesperson Liz Skrbkova said Doustdar “brings a strong sense of urgency and laser focus on performance, aimed at delivering innovation to the patients we serve.”

Lilly, meanwhile, reported a 38% year-over-year increase in revenue to $15.5 billion, driven mostly by Zepbound and Mounjaro. 

Zepbound’s revenue jumped a whopping 172% to $3.38 billion, while Mounjaro increased 68% to $5.2 billion.

As such, Lilly increased its full-year guidance to be in the range of $60 billion to $62 billion.

The company invested more in R&D and marketing in Q2 compared to the same time period last year, with its R&D expenses increasing 23% to $3.34 billion. 

Marketing, selling and administrative expenses rose by 30% to $2.75 billion, driven by promotional efforts supporting ongoing and future launches, Lilly noted.

Still, the buoyant success of Zepbound and Mounjaro wasn’t enough to appease investors about orforglipron missing expectations. 

Before earnings, orforglipron was considered one of biopharma’s most valuable pipeline assets in 2025, per a recent Evaluate report. The misses from Lilly and Novo have left a large question mark around the industry’s fastest-growing therapeutic area, Seigerman noted.

“The biggest surprise was Lilly and the orfoglipron data — it put a negative mark on this print,” Seigerman said. “Then you had Novo Nordisk come out with a surprise guidance cut a week ahead of the results. These big moves and big names cause investors to take pause… in figuring out what gets this sector moving.”