Ormeval provides decision-support intelligence derived from public sources. It is not investment, medical, legal or regulatory advice, and states nothing about the value of any security. Forward figures are deterministic model estimates, not guidance.
Keytruda (pembrolizumab) · anti-PD-1 · Merck & Co.
This page covers the adjuvant-only resected-NSCLC indication only (KEYNOTE-091 / PEARLS), not the perioperative (KEYNOTE-671), 1L metastatic, or non-lung Keytruda settings. See all Keytruda indications →
Label 1.2: 'KEYTRUDA, as a single agent, is indicated as adjuvant treatment following resection and platinum-based chemotherapy for adult patients with Stage IB (T2a >=4 cm), II, or IIIA NSCLC.' The row's 'stage IB-IIIA' is accurate, with the refinement that Stage IB is qualified as T2a >=4 cm. Two further gates worth carrying: the indication requires BOTH prior resection AND prior platinum-based chemotherapy, and it is adults-only. Approved 2023-01-26 on KEYNOTE-091. Traditional approval - absent from all three FDA accelerated-approval registries. Distinct from the KEYNOTE-671 perioperative indication.
All markets
2026 net revenue · modelled adjuvant-only slice
$853M
CONCLUDED · 2026 modelled net revenue - indication slice, all markets; Merck & Co. reports no indication revenue. Modelled net revenue · sourced funnel
No model change since the 20 Sep 2026 snapshot.
The 15-second read
This is a defensive slice of the Keytruda franchise that is already at its ceiling: the model puts peak at $853M in 2026, roughly 2.5% of a ~$31.7B franchise, and then falls to $247M by 2034. The dominant force is intra-franchise, not competitive: Keytruda's own perioperative KEYNOTE-671 has an OS benefit (HR 0.72) where 091 has only DFS (HR 0.73) with immature OS and a MISSED PD-L1 ≥50% co-primary, so fit patients migrate to the neoadjuvant-plus-adjuvant path. What remains is the narrowing residual of resected patients who never got neoadjuvant therapy, unexpected upstaging at surgery, or neoadjuvant declined, further thinned by adjuvant TKI carve-outs for EGFR and ALK. The honest read: Merck is not losing this setting to a rival, it is trading it up internally, and the ~2028 US LOE arrives into an already-shrinking line.
Threats land:Mature KEYNOTE-091 OS reads out flat or negative, guidelines de-emphasize adjuvant-only IO entirely, and the residual pool collapses faster than the modelled ~6-10%/yr erosion well before biosimilars arrive in 2028.
Modelled path:Adjuvant-only survives as the option for patients who present already resected, the pool erodes ~6-10%/yr to perioperative 671 plus EGFR/ALK TKI carve-outs, and biosimilars from ~2028 US / ~2029 EU take the curve from its $853M 2026 peak to $247M in 2034.
Levers land:Mature OS turns positive and ctDNA-MRD selection defines a genuine adjuvant-escalation population, giving adjuvant-only a data-backed niche that stabilizes the setting before the LOE rather than after it.
The size of the residual adjuvant-only pool itself, the driver-negative resected patients who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy, is an Ormeval scoping estimate derived from an assumed ~6-10%/yr cannibalization rate by KEYNOTE-671, not from any reported adjuvant-versus-perioperative treatment split.
At a glance
Mechanism anti-PD-1
Clinical
Commercial
Development to approval
These are regulatory approval dates (FDA/EMA/NMPA/PMDA), not commercial launch; launch follows after pricing & reimbursement (see the access-lag column in the HTA table). All four regulators have approved this indication. Cross-checked against Merck & Co. disclosures and regulator databases.
KEYNOTE-091 extended Keytruda into adjuvant early-stage NSCLC, but its strategic role has been overtaken: it is a DECLINING line, cannibalized by Keytruda's own perioperative KEYNOTE-671 (which adds a neoadjuvant phase and, unlike PEARLS, showed a clear OS benefit). The missed PD-L1 ≥50% co-primary and immature OS weaken its competitive position versus atezolizumab (IMpower010, which reached the setting first) and versus the perioperative paradigm. Strategically it now serves the narrowing niche of resected patients NOT given neoadjuvant therapy (e.g. unexpected upstaging at surgery, or where neoadjuvant was declined), a shrinking, defensive slice rather than a growth driver.
Resected Stage IB(≥4cm)–IIIA NSCLC, completely removed but high-risk-of-relapse disease, was managed with surgery ± adjuvant chemotherapy until adjuvant IO. KEYNOTE-091 (PEARLS) showed adjuvant pembrolizumab improves DFS overall (HR 0.73), though the PD-L1 ≥50% co-primary was missed (HR 0.82, ns) and OS was immature. Atezolizumab (IMpower010) reached this setting first (FDA Oct 2021). The adjuvant-only line is now DECLINING as the perioperative regimen (KEYNOTE-671) cannibalizes it and osimertinib (ADAURA) carves out EGFR+ patients.
Resected NSCLC is completely-removed Stage IB(≥4cm)–IIIA disease where, despite R0 resection, micrometastatic relapse is common, the rationale for adjuvant systemic therapy. Adjuvant chemotherapy (cisplatin-based) is the historical backbone; adjuvant immunotherapy (pembrolizumab/atezolizumab) is added to delay or prevent recurrence. Treatment bifurcates on molecular testing: EGFR-positive resected patients (~15% West, ~40–50% East Asia) are routed to adjuvant osimertinib (ADAURA, DFS HR 0.20), NOT IO, and ALK+ to alectinib (ALINA), both carve patients out of the adjuvant-IO pool. The adjuvant-ONLY setting is structurally shrinking as the perioperative regimen (KEYNOTE-671, with its neoadjuvant phase + OS benefit) becomes preferred for fit, higher-stage patients. Across the 8 modelled markets the addressable adjuvant-only pool is a declining ~30,000–40,000 patients/year.
KEYNOTE-091 (PEARLS) tested adjuvant pembrolizumab after complete resection of early-stage NSCLC. It met its DFS co-primary endpoint in the overall population (HR 0.73) but, surprisingly, MISSED the co-primary in the PD-L1 TPS ≥50% subgroup (HR 0.82, not significant), the opposite of the usual PD-L1 gradient. Overall survival was immature at the primary analyses. The adjuvant-only setting is now being cannibalized by the perioperative regimen (KEYNOTE-671), which adds a neoadjuvant phase and showed a clear OS benefit.
EGFR/ALK testing before treatment: driver-positive resected patients are routed to adjuvant TKIs (osimertinib/ADAURA, alectinib/ALINA), NOT IO, carving them out of the adjuvant-IO pool (largest in Japan/China). Guidelines increasingly steer fit patients to the perioperative regimen (KEYNOTE-671, OS-positive), leaving adjuvant-only pembrolizumab for those not given neoadjuvant therapy, a key reason the adjuvant-only pool is shrinking.
Randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled Ph3 (PEARLS/KEYNOTE-091); n=1177; completely resected Stage IB(≥4cm)–IIIA NSCLC; adjuvant chemotherapy permitted/recommended; adjuvant pembrolizumab 200 mg q3w vs placebo for up to ~1 year (18 cycles); dual co-primary DFS in the overall population AND in PD-L1 TPS ≥50%.
Load-bearing 6/7 sourced. ASSUMED uptake is yours to change.
This indication only, not Keytruda's total revenue
Adjuvant single-agent pembrolizumab after complete surgical resection (and adjuvant chemotherapy where indicated) in Stage IB(≥4cm)–IIIA NSCLC (the KEYNOTE-091 / PEARLS regimen), broad population; the PD-L1 ≥50% co-primary was NOT met.
Reported actuals are always drawn and need no chip: a cited reported figure is a fact, not a claim. Everything forward of them is one of the 4 kinds above.
$853M
8 modelled markets (US, EU5, JP, CN) · modelled net revenue · 2026 (forecast)
Peak $853M · launch 2023 → 2034
modeled history (left of today)·click any year to decompose its funnel below.
Measured band: none - no measured band: n<8
Bull / bear elsewhere in the product are a sensitivity (fixed multipliers), not this band.
Pre-2026 figures are MODELLED (no indication × country actuals reported) and calibrated to Merck's reported Keytruda franchise (FY2025 ≈ $31.7B) and its growth SHAPE: the adjuvant-only slice rises briefly from the Jan 2023 launch to an EARLY ceiling of ~$0.8B around 2024–25 ≈ ~2.5% of the franchise, then DECLINES as the perioperative 671 regimen cannibalizes the setting and the ~2028 LOE adds biosimilar erosion, the defining DECLINING shape of this model. The 'today' marker splits modelled history from forecast.
No reported anchor exists at this grain: companies publish this asset as one product line and never split it by indication × country, so every year above is modelled, including the years already past. The claims below are scored against reported actuals wherever a program has them.
A forecast year closes when an actual is reported for it. A miss is the distance from that actual, signed as the claim fell: under it, or over it.
| Claim | Closed years | Worst miss | Worst miss % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ormeval modelMODELLED · Ormeval · live | - | no closed year yet | - |
A superseded team version keeps its own row: what it was off by is still a fact about that version. A row with no closed year is not a good score.
What it shows. A modelled base-case net-revenue curve for this indication, year by year, split at 'today' into modelled history and forecast, with the branded curve shown against its in-class rivals.
What to look for. The peak year and how steep the decline is after loss of exclusivity, and where a rival's curve crosses yours, that crossing is the share the model has you losing.
Common misread. Reading the pre-'today' portion as reported actuals (it's modelled), or treating the base case as a company target. It is one deterministic Ormeval-modelled scenario anchored to cited actuals, not guidance and not analyst consensus.
Key model assumptions · The headline rests chiefly on the assumed cannibalization pace of the perioperative regimen and on the driver-positive carve-out fraction (~15-20% in the West but ~45-50% in Japan and China), both estimates; the fixed ~1-year, ~$100k US full-course net is comparatively firm.
The decline is defended, not certain
The decline is well defended because its main driver is intra-franchise and already observed, 671 is OS-positive and 091 is not, but the slope is not certain: it assumes a specific cannibalization rate, and if surgeons keep sending upstaged patients to adjuvant-only IO the pool shrinks more slowly than modelled.
What would change our mind
If the mature KEYNOTE-091 overall-survival analysis reports a clear survival benefit comparable to KEYNOTE-671's HR 0.72, the base case is wrong, adjuvant-only stops being the weaker data package, the migration to perioperative slows, and the modelled post-2027 slide is too steep.
A scenario is your own assumptions layered on Ormeval’s cited baseline. We never change the baseline; save as many named scenarios as you like and click one to load it back later.
| Driver · 2026 | US | FR | DE | IT | ES | UK | JP | CN | Total | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lung cancer incidence (2026) | 231k | 51k | 63k | 45k | 31k | 52k | 139k | 1.08M | 1.69M | GLOBOCAN 2022 |
New lung-cancer cases per year; +1%/yr for ageing demographics. Shown for 2026: 2024 basis +1%/yr → ×1.020. Country-specific GLOBOCAN 2022 lung-cancer incidence, cross-checked to national registries; +1%/yr ageing trend. Same incidence base as the other Keytruda lung models. | ||||||||||
| × NSCLC | 85% | 87% | 78% | 85% | 84% | 83% | 91% | 85% | share, not summed | KBP · SEER · ZfKD |
Non-small-cell histology (vs small-cell). Country-specific NSCLC fraction (~78–91%). Same basis as the PACIFIC / 1L / perioperative models. | ||||||||||
| × Resected Stage IB(≥4cm)–IIIAest | 18% | 17% | 18% | 17% | 18% | 16% | 22% | 16% | share, not summed | NCDB · KBP · NCR |
Completely resected Stage IB(≥4cm)–IIIA at diagnosis (the KEYNOTE-091 eligible band; excludes small IB, unresectable, Stage IV). The resected IB(≥4cm)–IIIA band is ~16–20% of NSCLC: the higher-risk slice of resected disease (excludes small Stage IA/IB <4cm where adjuvant IO isn't indicated, and unresectable/Stage IV). Japan higher resected share (~22%, aggressive surgery / earlier-stage screening); China ~16%. Slightly NARROWER than the perioperative resectable band because it focuses on the adjuvant-eligible higher-risk subset. | ||||||||||
| × No actionable driver (EGFR/ALK−)est | 82% | 85% | 85% | 82% | 80% | 85% | 55% | 52% | share, not summed | IFCT · PIONEER |
Excludes EGFR/ALK-positive resected tumours, routed to adjuvant TKIs (osimertinib/ADAURA, alectinib/ALINA), not adjuvant IO. THE pool's geographic swing factor. Dominant geographic swing: EGFR+ALK ~15–20% of NSCLC in the West (~80–85% driver-negative) but ~45–50% East Asia (~52–55% driver-negative). In resected disease, ADAURA (osimertinib, DFS HR 0.20) is the standard for EGFR+, sharply carving them out of the adjuvant-IO pool, the carve-out is most severe in Japan/China. | ||||||||||
| × Adjuvant-eligible & treated (adjuvant-only)est | 58% | 58% | 58% | 55% | 55% | 56% | 58% | 40% | share, not summed | MYLUNG · ESMO audit |
Fit for and receiving ADJUVANT-ONLY pembrolizumab (NOT given neoadjuvant 671), biomarker-tested, post-resection. Branded UPTAKE is the share row below. Captures post-resection fitness, testing completeness, AND the structural shift toward perioperative therapy: this gate counts patients who get ADJUVANT-ONLY pembrolizumab (not the neoadjuvant 671 path), so it is deliberately MODERATE and shrinks over time as 671 takes fit patients. Western ~0.55–0.60, Japan ~0.58, China ~0.40. Excludes branded UPTAKE, the competitive share layer. | ||||||||||
| = Addressable adjuvant-only pool | 14k | 3.1k | 3.7k | 2.4k | 1.7k | 2.7k | 7.7k | 27k | 62k | computed |
Incidence × the rates above, driver-negative resected patients reachable for ADJUVANT-ONLY IO this year (a shrinking pool as perioperative 671 cannibalizes it). The adjuvant-ONLY pool DECLINES through the forecast: the perioperative regimen (KEYNOTE-671, OS-positive) progressively captures fit, higher-stage resected patients who would otherwise get adjuvant-only pembrolizumab, and expanding adjuvant TKIs (ADAURA/ALINA) carve out more EGFR/ALK patients. Modelled as a steady erosion (~6–10%/yr early, easing late), the defining feature of this DECLINING setting; East Asia erodes slightly slower (more early-stage already routed via the 671 periop label). | ||||||||||
| × Keytruda uptake (branded) | 32% | 36% | 38% | 35% | 35% | 36% | 22% | 12% | share, not summed | ASSUMED |
Per-market branded uptake of the addressable pool this year (launch ramp net of competitors & biosimilars). See the competitive curve below; pick a market for its access basis. | ||||||||||
| = Treated with Keytruda | 4.5k | 1.1k | 1.4k | 856 | 599 | 995 | 1.7k | 3.1k | 14k | computed · assumed input |
Addressable pool × branded uptake. | ||||||||||
| × Net price / patient (2026) | $96K | $56K | $60K | $54K | $51K | $56K | $48K | $19K | per patient, not summed | ASP · HTA · NRDL |
Fixed ~1-year adjuvant course (up to 18 pembrolizumab cycles), NOT until-progression, full-course net, similar magnitude to the perioperative course but slightly lower (no neoadjuvant chemo-IO cycles bundled; adjuvant single-agent). US ASP ≈ $11.8k/200mg × up to ~18 cycles, net of ~10–15% GTN and early discontinuation → ~$100k/course. EU nets ~$53–62k. Japan ~$50k (NHI cuts). China ~$20k (self-pay/evolving NRDL). −2%/yr forward; held flat before 2024. SHOWN FOR 2026: the per-market figures in "Net pricing: assumptions & basis" below are the 2024 basis; this row applies -2%/yr from 2024 (×0.9604), so it is the same source value at a later date, not a second price. | ||||||||||
| = Net revenue / yrOutput | $432M | $62.6M | $82.4M | $46.0M | $30.5M | $55.4M | $83.4M | $60.0M | $853M | computed · assumed input |
Treated patients × realized net price. | ||||||||||
Regional revenue mix · 2026 modelled
Model estimate, sourced from the funnel table above
No reported competitor-share series exists for this setting, so every trajectory below is modelled from approval timing, label breadth and the funnel, not reported data.
In-class share, adjuvant-only resected NSCLC immunotherapy: 8 modelled markets (US, EU5, JP, CN)
Each agent's share of the addressable adjuvant-only pool (driver-negative resected patients fit for adjuvant-only IO). The branded-pembrolizumab line ramps from the Jan 2023 approval to an early ceiling, then DECLINES as the perioperative 671 regimen cannibalizes the setting and atezolizumab competes; the gap below the top line is patients on competing adjuvant IO, chemo-only, or no adjuvant IO. Only the branded pembrolizumab adjuvant-only line is monetized here.
Share of the 62k-patient addressable adjuvant-only pool this regimen is modelled to treat, by year
Keytruda is modelled at 23% of this pool in 2026, peaking at 25% in 2027; each point of share is revenue on the chart above.
Scope: 8 modelled markets (US, EU5, JP, CN) · follows the market selector above
Rivals' share, same pool
Atezolizumab (IMpower010) holds the largest rival share in 2026, 9% of the pool; that is the share Keytruda has to take or hold.
Rivals, rescaled - note the axis maximum (20%), which is smaller than the plot above. Same data, a linear axis of its own, so a low-share entrant is readable rather than a hairline on the baseline.
Launch ramp = market-by-market approval + reimbursement timing (US Jan 2023, EU Oct 2023); atezolizumab (IMpower010, Oct 2021) competes directly; the perioperative shift (cannibalization) is captured in the DECLINING pool trajectory rather than as a rival line. Pembrolizumab biosimilars timed to the ~2028 US / ~2029 EU LOE. Competitor trajectories are stated assumptions.
Readouts, approvals and LOE events for pembrolizumab and its rivals in this setting. Estimated timing is flagged; confirmed dates cited from Merck & Co. disclosures and regulator databases.
Pembrolizumab composition-of-matter expiry (~2028); biosimilars reach the declining adjuvant line
EU biosimilar entry into an already-shrinking setting
Mature OS readout could rehabilitate or further weaken the adjuvant-only positioning
✓ = reported public fact, cited. Upcoming timing is estimated from company guidance and trial registries, a projection, not a commitment. Approvals = US (FDA) · EU (EMA) · Japan (PMDA) · China (NMPA). ● = pembrolizumab, competitor tag = a same-setting rival.
Residual unmet need: why the field stays alive
Adjuvant pembrolizumab delays recurrence but the OS benefit is unproven (immature), the PD-L1 ≥50% subgroup paradoxically did NOT benefit, and many patients still relapse. The unresolved questions, does adjuvant-only IO improve survival? who needs it on top of chemo?, push fit patients toward the perioperative regimen (which has OS data) and leave adjuvant-only as a residual option. EGFR/ALK patients are carved out to TKIs. That uncertainty is precisely why the adjuvant-only line is declining rather than growing.
The synthesis for this indication, grounded in the cited trial, guideline and access facts above.
Rivals in this setting (Adjuvant resected NSCLC)
Swipe to explore →
| Rival / regimen | Developer | Position in this setting | Approved (date, trial, n) | Head start vs this regimen (months) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atezolizumab (Tecentriq), IMpower010 (Live threat) | Roche / Genentech | Live threatwhyReached the adjuvant setting FIRST (FDA Oct 2021); DFS HR 0.66 in PD-L1≥1%, the direct adjuvant competitor | not in the record | not in the record | IMpower010, adjuvant atezolizumab (Felip, Lancet 2021) |
| Perioperative pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-671) (Merck & Co. pipeline) | Merck | adjuvant-onlywhyKeytruda's OWN perioperative regimen (OS HR 0.72), cannibalizes the adjuvant-only 091 line; the dominant force shrinking this setting (intra-franchise) | not in the record | not in the record | KEYNOTE-671 |
| Osimertinib (Tagrisso), ADAURA (Pool erosion) | AstraZeneca | Pool erosionwhyEGFR-positive resected patients get adjuvant osimertinib (DFS HR 0.20), carves the EGFR-mutant subpopulation OUT of the adjuvant-IO pool | not in the record | not in the record | ADAURA, adjuvant osimertinib EGFR+ (Wu, NEJM 2020) |
| Alectinib (Alecensa), ALINA (Pool erosion) | Roche | Pool erosionwhyALK-positive resected patients get adjuvant alectinib, carves the ALK subpopulation out of the adjuvant-IO pool | not in the record | not in the record | ALINA (adjuvant ALK+ resected) |
| Pembrolizumab biosimilars (Watch) | Generic (post-LOE) | WatchwhyUS LOE ~2028; EU ~2029, erosion of the already-declining adjuvant line | not in the record | not in the record | pembrolizumab LOE ~2028 (US) |
Not every rival is approved in every region, so a share here is the modelled position in the markets where it competes, not a global one.
Net pricing: assumptions & basis
Pembrolizumab is dosed 200 mg q3w across a fixed ~1-year adjuvant course (up to 18 cycles), not until-progression, so per-patient revenue is the full-course net (similar magnitude to the perioperative course, slightly lower as it is adjuvant single-agent). US ASP ≈ $11.8k/200mg; net prices below are per-market, net of country discounts and early-stop attrition.
Figures below are 2024 net prices, the basis the model is anchored on. The funnel applies -2%/yr from 2024, so the price it consumes for a later year is lower than the figure quoted here. Both come from this one value; the funnel row states the year it is showing.
Pembrolizumab is dosed 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to ~1 year (18 cycles) as adjuvant single-agent therapy after resection (NOT until-progression). US ASP ≈ $11,795/200 mg ⇒ ~$180–200k list, ~$100k net after ~10–15% physician-administered-biologic GTN and early discontinuation. EU nets are HTA-negotiated full-course: Germany AMNOG ~$62k, France/UK ~$58k, Italy ~$56k, Spain ~$53k (lowest Western). Japan: NHI-listed with biennial cuts → ~$50k/course (but the adjuvant-only pool is small as early-stage flows via the 671 periop label). China: self-pay/evolving NRDL → ~$20k/course. −2%/yr forward net erosion; held flat before 2024. ALL net prices are ESTIMATES.
What it shows. The approval-to-reimbursement journey by market: when each payer granted access, on what terms (PD-L1 or comparator restrictions), and the lag between regulatory approval and reimbursed revenue.
What to look for. The access-lag column, approval is not revenue and some markets take a year or more. And the restrictions that narrow the eligible population below the full label.
Common misread. Assuming a US price or approval transfers to other markets. Ex-US payers benchmark against comparators and reference prices, so the net price and the covered population are usually smaller.
Rows ordered by access speed. The approval→reimbursement lag is commercially load-bearing, and it is not one number per drug: a monotherapy indication and a later combination extension file separately with a payer and can reach routine commissioning years apart, even within the same asset’s first-line setting.
| Market | HTA body | Decision | Access lag | PD-L1 | Comparator | Key outcome / MEA note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US | FDA | 26 Jan 2023 | reference | None (overall pop; not PD-L1-gated) | Placebo (post-resection ± chemo) | Medicare Part B (J9271); ~1-yr adjuvant course; co-primary PD-L1≥50% missed but overall-pop approval |
| Germany | G-BA / IQWiG | 2023 | ~0.5 yr | None | Placebo | Reimbursed near EU approval; AMNOG net below list; densest EU access |
| EU | EMA / EC | 16 Oct 2023 | ~0.7 yr | None (overall pop) | Placebo | Centralised approval; national reimbursement follows; declining setting vs perioperative |
| France | HAS | 2023–2024 | ~0.8 yr | None | Placebo | Reimbursement post-EU; SMR important; perioperative preferred for fit patients |
| UK | NICE | 2023–2024 | ~1 yr | None | Placebo | Appraised post-EU; confidential PAS |
| Italy/Spain | AIFA / SEFH | 2024 | ~1–1.5 yr | None | Placebo | Managed entry + regional formulary lag |
| Japan | PMDA / NHI | via periop 671 (no standalone 091) | n/a | None | Placebo | Japan reaches early-stage via the perioperative 671 label, not a standalone 091 adjuvant approval, adjuvant-only pool minimal here |
| China | NMPA | via periop 671 (no standalone 091) | n/a | None | Placebo | China reaches early-stage via the perioperative 671 label; adjuvant-only 091 not separately central |
How much each assumption could move the forecast, one at a time, over the same cited baseline.
This is a sensitivity illustration, not a probability: it shows how far each assumption could move the forecast, never how likely it is.
Set a target and solve for one lever, what it would have to reach, benchmarked against real comparable launches.
One lever at a time: the other assumptions stay at baseline, so the trade-off stays visible.
A model that shows where its own risk is, not a number to trust. Never investment advice.
Cite this forecast as recorded on Q2 2026 → A permanent record of these figures that does not change when the model does.
Every reported figure here traces to a public source below; the model's own assumptions are labelled where they appear.
Reported figures are public facts from company filings; the forward peak is Ormeval's own modelled estimate, not company guidance and not analyst consensus. Approval and readout dates are cross-checked against public regulator and company disclosures. Not investment advice.