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) · PD-1 inhibitor, perioperative with enfortumab vedotin · Merck & Co.
CISPLATIN-ELIGIBLE increment ONLY. The cisplatin-INELIGIBLE perioperative population (EV-303/KEYNOTE-905, approved 21 Nov 2025) is a separate, already-monetizing indication and is NOT included here, the two must not be double-counted. The partner asset enfortumab vedotin has its OWN model over the SAME patient pool with the same penetration schedule and its own price; that is a legitimate second revenue line, not a duplicate. See all Keytruda indications →
FDA approved Keytruda + Padcev on 10 Jul 2026 on KEYNOTE-B15/EV-304 - the first non-platinum regimen to beat neoadjuvant cisplatin chemotherapy in this setting. The FDA notice states the action 'extends the prior approval for the regimen in this setting from patients who are cisplatin-ineligible to all patients with MIBC who are candidates for cystectomy', which is precisely the cisplatin-eligible population this row describes; the label sentence itself (§1.7) is not stratified by cisplatin eligibility, so the two-step 2025/2026 history is invisible from the label alone. Efficacy per FDA in 808 patients: EFS HR 0.53 (95% CI 0.41-0.70, p<0.0001) and OS HR 0.65 (95% CI 0.48-0.89, p=0.0029). One caveat for analysts: the pCR 55.8% vs 32.5% figure does NOT appear in the FDA notice, which cites EFS (primary) and OS only - treat it as publication-sourced, not label-sourced. With Astellas/Pfizer.
All markets
Peak net revenue, pembrolizumab share · modelled, 2033
$407M
CONCLUDED · 2033 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
EV-304 is the strongest kind of oncology win, beating an active standard rather than a weak control: EFS HR 0.53, OS HR 0.65 and pCR 55.8% vs 32.5% against neoadjuvant gem/cis, approved 10 Jul 2026, five weeks ahead of PDUFA, as the first platinum-free perioperative regimen. Two structural facts bound what it is worth to Merck. It is a partner regimen, so Merck books only the pembrolizumab course of a patient shared with Pfizer/Astellas, and the cisplatin-eligible indication is approved in the US ONLY, with the EC's 24 Jun 2026 decision covering cisplatin-ineligible patients, no NICE appraisal, and Japan and China filed but not approved. The modelled line climbs from $87M in 2026 to $407M in 2033, and it is a lifecycle-defence asset sitting against a ~2028 US biologic LOE for the wider Keytruda franchise, so most of the value depends on ex-US label extensions that have not happened yet.
Threats land:EU and UK HTA bodies price the smaller increment honestly, EV-304's HR 0.53/0.65 versus active chemotherapy is a weaker value case than EV-303's HR 0.40/0.50 against a weaker control, and cisplatin-eligible approvals outside the US stall, leaving this indication a largely US-only line while Imfinzi holds its March 2025 head start elsewhere.
Modelled path:The US pool converts steadily off the Jul 2026 approval while EU, UK and Japan label extensions arrive later in the decade, carrying the curve to $407M in 2033 with China contributing almost nothing.
Levers land:Cisplatin-eligible label extensions land in the EU, UK and Japan and roughly triple an ex-US addressable pool that is currently zero, while EV+pembro displaces the remaining neoadjuvant gem/cis share that still holds the majority of the setting outside the US.
The modelled penetration of the cisplatin-eligible perioperative pool is an Ormeval scoping estimate and is unusually exposed, because no perioperative-MIBC consensus forecast exists: it is calibrated indirectly off Astellas raising whole-Padcev peak guidance from $2.7B to $3.4B on the bladder label extension, with the cisplatin-eligible portion of that increment inferred, and the same share is applied to both partners by construction.
At a glance
Mechanism PD-1 inhibitor, perioperative with enfortumab vedotin
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.
Perioperative MIBC extends Keytruda into a curative-intent, earlier-stage setting at a moment when its metastatic franchise faces a 2028 US biologic LOE. Earlier-line and perioperative indications are precisely the ground Merck needs to hold as the composition-of-matter cliff approaches. The strategic caveat specific to this page: the partner regimen means Merck shares the patient with Pfizer/Astellas, and the incremental value story is weaker here than in the cisplatin-ineligible pool because the comparator was active chemotherapy rather than a weaker control.
Muscle-invasive bladder cancer is treated with radical cystectomy, historically preceded by cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients fit enough to receive it. EV-304 replaced that chemotherapy with an antibody-drug conjugate plus a checkpoint inhibitor and improved both event-free and overall survival, making it the first platinum-free perioperative regimen. Pembrolizumab and enfortumab vedotin are given together to the same patient, so each partner books its own drug revenue from a single shared pool.
Roughly a quarter of new bladder cancers are muscle-invasive at diagnosis, and about 42% of those proceed to radical cystectomy, the rest are excluded by age, comorbidity, bladder-preservation approaches or refusal. Among patients who do reach cystectomy, 70% are fit for cisplatin. That surgical, cisplatin-eligible population is the pool here: roughly 23,000 patients a year across the eight modelled markets, weighted to China and the United States. Perioperative therapy is a fixed course rather than chronic treatment, so revenue follows incident starts rather than a prevalent stock.
KEYNOTE-B15/EV-304 (NCT04700124) tested whether a platinum-free perioperative regimen of enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab could beat standard neoadjuvant gemcitabine/cisplatin in patients FIT for cisplatin, the population where chemotherapy was hardest to displace. It did, on both event-free and overall survival, and the FDA approved it about five weeks ahead of its PDUFA date.
US guideline placement moved quickly after the Jul 2026 approval. European guidelines still position cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy as standard for cisplatin-ELIGIBLE patients because the EC approval of 24 Jun 2026 covers cisplatin-INELIGIBLE patients only.
Randomised, open-label Phase 3 (NCT04700124), n=808 cisplatin-ELIGIBLE patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer scheduled for radical cystectomy. Arm A: perioperative enfortumab vedotin + pembrolizumab (neoadjuvant, then radical cystectomy with pelvic lymph-node dissection, then adjuvant). Arm B: standard-of-care neoadjuvant gemcitabine/cisplatin, then cystectomy with PLND. Primary endpoint: event-free survival. Sponsor Merck Sharp & Dohme with Pfizer/Astellas. Status ACTIVE, NOT RECRUITING; primary completion 27 Oct 2025. Note the control arm was ACTIVE chemotherapy, not surgery alone.
Load-bearing 5/6 sourced. ASSUMED uptake is yours to change.
This indication only, not Keytruda's total revenue
Pembrolizumab combined with enfortumab vedotin as perioperative therapy (neoadjuvant, then radical cystectomy with pelvic lymph-node dissection, then adjuvant) in CISPLATIN-ELIGIBLE patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. FDA approved 10 Jul 2026 (KEYNOTE-B15/EV-304), extending the label to MIBC regardless of cisplatin eligibility, the first platinum-free perioperative regimen. This page models the CISPLATIN-ELIGIBLE increment only; the cisplatin-ineligible population was approved separately in Nov 2025.
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.
$87.2M
8 modelled markets (US, EU5, JP, CN) · modelled net revenue · 2026 (forecast)
Peak $407M · launch 2018 → 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.
This indication is one component of Keytruda's broader lifecycle defence ahead of the ~2028 US biologic LOE, and it is a PARTNER regimen: Merck captures only the pembrolizumab economics of a patient shared with Pfizer/Astellas. Merck does not disaggregate Keytruda revenue by indication, so no reported figure exists for this setting and none is implied. The enfortumab vedotin model covers the same patients at the partner's own price.
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 on the funnel gates more than on price: a cisplatin-eligible fraction set at 0.70 rather than the familiar 'about half' because the pool has already been conditioned on cystectomy fitness, only about 42% of muscle-invasive patients reaching radical cystectomy at all, a 0.19 muscle-invasive rate for Germany/Italy/Spain to correct registry comparability, and ex-US launch years that are estimates contingent on approvals not yet granted.
What would change our mind
If the EU or UK declines to extend the perioperative label to cisplatin-eligible patients, or reimburses it at a discount reflecting the smaller increment over active chemotherapy, before Keytruda's ~2028 US biologic LOE begins compressing the franchise, the ex-US contribution assumed from 2029 onward does not arrive and the $407M 2033 peak is unreachable.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bladder cancer incidence (all stages) | 80k | 20k | 29k | 35k | 21k | 24k | 35k | 93k | 336k | GLOBOCAN 2022 |
New bladder-cancer cases per year per market, GLOBOCAN 2022. Narrowed below to the resectable, cisplatin-eligible perioperative pool. REGISTRY-COMPARABILITY WARNING, applied rather than merely noted. Germany, Italy and Spain report age-standardised bladder-cancer rates roughly twice the US level (ASR 12-19), because those registries have historically included Ta/Tis non-invasive papillary tumours in the bladder-cancer count. Applying a uniform muscle-invasive fraction to those inflated bases would overstate their pools. The muscle-invasive rate row below therefore uses 0.19 for DE/IT/ES against 0.25 elsewhere, a registry-comparability correction, flagged as an estimate. | ||||||||||
| x Muscle-invasive at diagnosisest | 25% | 25% | 19% | 19% | 19% | 25% | 25% | 25% | share, not summed | CRUK / SEER staging |
Share of new bladder cancers that are muscle-invasive (>=T2) rather than non-muscle-invasive. 0.25 is the standard Western figure. The 0.19 applied to Germany, Italy and Spain is NOT a claim that muscle-invasive disease is rarer there, it corrects for those registries counting non-invasive papillary tumours in the denominator. Without it their pools would be overstated by roughly a third. | ||||||||||
| x Undergo radical cystectomy | 42% | 42% | 42% | 42% | 42% | 42% | 42% | 42% | share, not summed | NCDB (n=83,259) |
Share of muscle-invasive patients who proceed to radical cystectomy, the surgical setting the perioperative regimen is built around. Many muscle-invasive patients never reach cystectomy, age, comorbidity, bladder-preservation trimodal therapy, or refusal. The NCDB figure is a large real-world US denominator and is applied across markets; ex-US cystectomy rates are not separately published and this is a stated assumption. | ||||||||||
| x Cisplatin-ELIGIBLE | 70% | 70% | 70% | 70% | 70% | 70% | 70% | 70% | share, not summed | The Oncologist 2024 (n=956) |
Share of cystectomy candidates fit for cisplatin. This model covers the cisplatin-ELIGIBLE half; the cisplatin-ineligible population was approved separately in Nov 2025 and is NOT included here. THE COMMON ERROR HERE IS 0.50, AND IT IS WRONG FOR THIS POOL. The widely-quoted 'roughly half of MIBC patients are cisplatin-ineligible' derives from ALL-COMERS MIBC cohorts that include non-surgical and ECOG>=2 patients. This funnel has ALREADY conditioned on fitness for radical cystectomy in the previous row, so applying 0.50 here double-counts the same fitness filter and understates the pool by about 30%. Conditioned on cystectomy, the published eligible fraction is 70.0%. Sensitivity band 0.67-0.72. | ||||||||||
| = = Addressable perioperative pool (cisplatin-eligible) | 5.9k | 1.5k | 1.6k | 1.9k | 1.2k | 1.7k | 2.5k | 7.0k | 23k | computed |
Resectable muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients proceeding to radical cystectomy who are FIT FOR CISPLATIN, roughly 23,000 a year across the eight markets. This is an INCIDENT flow treated with a fixed perioperative course, not a prevalent stock on chronic therapy, so revenue is starts x course cost. The identical pool is used by the enfortumab vedotin model; the two partners split the economics of the same patient. Bladder-cancer incidence is broadly flat in Western markets (declining smoking prevalence offset by population aging) and grows in China off a rising and increasingly diagnosed base. Indexed to 2025 = 1.0. | ||||||||||
| × Keytruda uptake (branded) | 9% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 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 | 528 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 528 | computed · assumed input |
Addressable pool × branded uptake. | ||||||||||
| × Net price / patient (2026) | $165K | $76K | $80K | $68K | $68K | $89K | $43K | $51K | per patient, not summed | WAC/NHI, course of 17 cycles |
This is a COURSE price, not an annual price: 17 cycles of pembrolizumab over the perioperative period. Rebate factors are stated assumptions except Japan, where the NHI price IS net, and Germany, where the post-AMNOG price is net. Note the counterintuitive verified fact that pembrolizumab is priced HIGHER relative to the US in Europe than enfortumab vedotin is, the two partners have very different geographic price gradients, which is why their revenue lines diverge in shape despite an identical patient pool. SHOWN FOR 2026: the per-market figures in "Net pricing: assumptions & basis" below are the 2025 basis; this row applies -1%/yr from 2025 (×0.9900), so it is the same source value at a later date, not a second price. | ||||||||||
| = Net revenue / yrOutput | $87.2M | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | $87.2M | 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.
Share of the cisplatin-eligible perioperative pool: 8 modelled markets (US, EU5, JP, CN)
Modelled share of the cisplatin-eligible perioperative pool receiving the EV+pembro regimen. This schedule is SHARED with the enfortumab vedotin model by construction, both partners treat the same patient, so the same penetration applies to both and only price differs. Calibrated against the Astellas disclosure that whole-Padcev peak guidance rose from $2.7B to $3.4B on the bladder label extension; the periop-specific figure is DERIVED, as no perioperative-MIBC consensus forecast exists.
Share of the 23k-patient cisplatin-eligible perioperative pool this regimen is modelled to treat, by year
Keytruda is modelled at 2% of this pool in 2026, peaking at 14% in 2033; 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
Neoadjuvant gemcitabine/cisplatin holds the largest rival share in 2026, 13% 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.
Modelled; derived from Astellas peak-guidance uplift
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.
Estimated EU label extension to cisplatin-eligible patients, would open an ex-US pool that is currently zero
✓ = 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
Even with EFS HR 0.53 and OS HR 0.65, a substantial minority of patients still relapse after perioperative therapy and radical cystectomy, and cystectomy itself carries lasting morbidity. Bladder preservation remains the larger unmet need: no perioperative regimen has yet displaced removal of the bladder as the definitive procedure. Toxicity from the ADC partner also constrains who can complete the full course.
The synthesis for this indication, grounded in the cited trial, guideline and access facts above.
Rivals in this setting (Perioperative cisplatin-eligible MIBC (with enfortumab vedotin))
Imfinzi reached the setting first, Mar 2025; Padcev is the partner, not a rival.
Swipe to explore →
| Rival / regimen | Developer | Position in this setting | Approved (date, trial, n) | Head start vs this regimen (months) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Imfinzi (durvalumab) (Live threat) | AstraZeneca | incumbentwhyFDA approved 28 Mar 2025, the direct perioperative incumbent with a head start in every market | 28 Mar 2025, NIAGARA, n=1,063 | 16 | FDA, durvalumab for MIBC (NIAGARA), the perioperative incumbent |
| Opdivo (nivolumab) (Live threat) | Bristol Myers Squibb | adjuvant-onlywhyApproved Aug 2021; adjuvant-only and partially displaced by a perioperative regimen | Aug 2021, CheckMate-274 | 59 | CheckMate-274 |
| Neoadjuvant gemcitabine/cisplatin (Pool erosion) | Generic | control armwhyThe incumbent standard being displaced; still holds most of the Chinese setting on cost | not in the record | not in the record | ClinicalTrials.gov, KEYNOTE-B15 / EV-304 (NCT04700124) |
| Padcev (enfortumab vedotin) (Merck & Co. pipeline) | Pfizer / Astellas | partner - not a rivalwhyPARTNER, NOT A RIVAL, given to the same patient in the same regimen; modelled separately at its own price | not in the record | not in the record | ClinicalTrials.gov, KEYNOTE-B15 / EV-304 (NCT04700124) |
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's perioperative course is 17 cycles (4 neoadjuvant, 13 adjuvant) at 200 mg every three weeks, roughly $166,900 net in the US. This is a fixed course, not an annual cost, so revenue tracks patient starts rather than a prevalent treated population.
Figures below are 2025 net prices, the basis the model is anchored on. The funnel applies -1%/yr from 2025, 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.
Every figure here is a COURSE cost across 17 cycles, and the model multiplies it by incident starts rather than stacking a prevalent population. The US number derives from published WAC of $12,272 per 200 mg vial less an assumed 20% gross-to-net, an assumption, though a narrower and better-anchored one than in retail-heavy categories, because perioperative oncology is largely buy-and-bill under the medical benefit. Germany's post-AMNOG price and Japan's NHI yakka are already net and need no rebate assumption. France, Italy and Spain are estimated at roughly 85% of the German ex-factory equivalent; the UK applies an assumed 25% patient-access-scheme discount to the BNF list. China is modelled at roughly 60% of list and, critically, on a self-pay basis: Keytruda is not NRDL-listed and has failed NRDL negotiation three times. One verified and counterintuitive point worth carrying: pembrolizumab holds a much flatter US-to-Europe price gradient than its partner enfortumab vedotin, whose European list runs at a small fraction of its US level. The two partners therefore produce differently-shaped revenue curves from an identical patient pool, which is the clearest demonstration of why they need separate models rather than one combined regimen line.
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 | 10 Jul 2026 (approved) | reference | not required | Neoadjuvant gem/cis; perioperative durvalumab (NIAGARA) | Approved for MIBC regardless of cisplatin eligibility, the first platinum-free perioperative regimen. Reimbursed under the medical benefit from launch. |
| EU | EMA / EC | 24 Jun 2026, cisplatin-INELIGIBLE ONLY | ~1 yr | not required | Neoadjuvant gem/cis; perioperative durvalumab | CRITICAL SCOPE POINT: the EC approval does NOT cover the cisplatin-ELIGIBLE population this page models. A label extension would be required. Modelled EU launches are estimates contingent on it. |
| Germany | G-BA / IQWiG | Est. 2027 (cis-eligible not approved) | ~1 yr | not required | Neoadjuvant gem/cis | Free pricing in year 1 after any label extension, then AMNOG benefit assessment against active chemotherapy. Estimate. |
| France | HAS | Est. 2028 (cis-eligible not approved) | ~1.5 yr | not required | Neoadjuvant gem/cis | Estimate contingent on a label extension, then CEPS pricing. HAS will price the increment over an active comparator. |
| UK | NICE | Est. 2028, NO appraisal identified | ~1.5 yr | not required | Neoadjuvant gem/cis | Neither approved nor appraised for the perioperative indication. This cell carries more uncertainty than the EU cells. |
| Italy / Spain | AIFA / AEMPS | Est. 2028 (cis-eligible not approved) | ~1.8 yr | not required | Neoadjuvant gem/cis | Southern-EU pricing and regional formulary lag on top of a label extension. Estimates. |
| Japan | PMDA / NHI | sNDA filed, not approved | ~1 yr | not required | Neoadjuvant gem/cis | Cisplatin-eligible sNDA filed; the cisplatin-ineligible filing was submitted 30 Jan 2026. NHI listing follows approval by 60-90 days. Estimate. |
| China | NMPA / NRDL | BLA accepted 7 Jul 2026, not approved | ~2 yr | not required | Neoadjuvant gem/cis (generic) | NEITHER DRUG IS NRDL-LISTED. Keytruda has failed NRDL negotiation three times; no foreign PD-(L)1 has ever entered the NRDL. Self-pay plus patient assistance only, so uptake is capped far below eligibility. |
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 Q3 2026 → A permanent record of these figures that does not change when the model does.
Every material move on this page, newest first, the public fact, and what our model made of it.
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.