ICON PLC (ICLR) 2026 Q2 法說會逐字稿

Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the ICON plc Q2 2026 earnings conference call. (Operator Instructions) Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the conference over to your first speaker today, Kate Haven. Please go ahead.

各位好，感謝您耐心等候。歡迎參加 ICON plc 2026 年第二季財報電話會議。(接線員指示) 請注意，今天的會議將被錄音。現在我想把會議交給今天的第一位講者 Kate Haven。請開始。

Hello, and thank you for joining us today. I'm joined on the call by our CEO, Barry Balfe; and our CFO, Nigel Clerkin. I would like to note that this call is webcast and that there are slides available to download on our website to accompany today's call. Certain statements in today's call will be forward-looking statements. These statements are based on management's current expectations and information currently available, including current economic and industry conditions.

各位好，感謝今天加入我們。今天與我一同參與電話會議的有我們的執行長 Barry Balfe，以及財務長 Nigel Clerkin。我想提醒各位，本次電話會議有網路直播，並且我們網站上提供可下載的簡報投影片以配合今天的會議。今天電話會議中的某些陳述將屬於前瞻性陳述。這些陳述係基於管理層目前的預期以及目前可得的資訊，包括當前的經濟與產業狀況。

Actual results may differ materially from those stated or implied by forward-looking statements due to risks and uncertainties associated with the company's business, and listeners are cautioned that forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance. Forward-looking statements are only as of the date they are made, and we do not undertake any obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements, either as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

由於與公司業務相關的風險與不確定性，實際結果可能與前瞻性陳述所述或所暗示者有重大差異；並提醒聽眾，前瞻性陳述並非未來績效之保證。前瞻性陳述僅截至其作成之日有效；我們不承擔因新資訊、未來事件或其他原因而公開更新任何前瞻性陳述之義務。

More information about the risks and uncertainties relating to these forward-looking statements may be found in the most recently filed annual report on Form 20-F. This presentation includes selected non-GAAP financial measures, which Barry and Nigel will be referencing in their prepared remarks.

關於與這些前瞻性陳述相關之風險與不確定性的更多資訊，請參閱最近提交的 Form 20-F 年度報告。本次簡報包含部分非 GAAP 財務衡量指標，Barry 與 Nigel 將在其事先準備的發言中引用。

For a presentation of the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures, please refer to the section of the press release dated July 29, 2026, titled Consolidated Statements of Operations. While non-GAAP financial measures are not superior to or substitute for the comparable GAAP measures, we believe certain non-GAAP information is more useful to investors for historical comparison purposes.

如需最直接可比的 GAAP 財務衡量指標之呈列，請參閱 2026 年 7 月 29 日新聞稿中題為「合併營運報表（Consolidated Statements of Operations）」的章節。雖然非 GAAP 財務衡量指標並不優於或取代可比的 GAAP 指標，但我們認為某些非 GAAP 資訊對投資人進行歷史比較更具參考價值。

Included in the press release and the earnings slides, you will note a reconciliation of non-GAAP measures. Adjusted EBITDA, adjusted net income and adjusted diluted earnings per share exclude amortization, stock-based compensation, foreign currency gains and losses, restructuring, transaction, integration-related and other adjustments, transaction-related financing costs, fair value movement on investments and equity, goodwill impairment, loss on disposal of subsidiary undertakings, impairment of nonfinancial assets and their related taxation effect.

在新聞稿與財報投影片中，您會看到非 GAAP 指標的調節表。調整後 EBITDA、調整後淨利以及調整後稀釋每股盈餘排除攤銷、以股份為基礎之酬勞、外幣損益、重組、交易、整合相關及其他調整、交易相關融資成本、投資與權益之公允價值變動、商譽減損、處分子公司之損失、非金融資產減損及其相關稅務影響。

In the interest of time, we ask participants to keep their questions to one each. I would now like to hand over the call to our CEO, Barry Balfe.

為節省時間，我們請與會者每人僅提一個問題。現在我想把電話會議交給我們的執行長 Barry Balfe。

Thanks, Kate, and thanks, everybody, for joining. ICON delivered solid second quarter results, characterized by a positive demand environment, strong bookings and disciplined cost management as we navigated the business mix headwinds discussed on our last call. While pass-through activity continued to benefit reported revenue and net bookings, underlying business performance delivered further sequential earnings progression during the quarter.

謝謝你，Kate，也謝謝各位加入。ICON 交出穩健的第二季成果，特徵包括正向的需求環境、強勁的接單，以及在我們因應上次電話會議所提及的業務組合逆風時，仍維持嚴謹的成本管理。雖然轉付（pass-through）活動持續推升報告營收與淨接單，但基礎業務表現於本季仍帶來進一步的連續性獲利改善。

Direct fee bookings also remained strong, resulting in a direct fee net book-to-bill ratio of 1.2x. Overall, our second quarter results were consistent with the trends we have highlighted in recent quarters, measured progress supported by sustained evidence of an improving demand environment. We remain focused on delivering for our customers, executing with discipline and investing in capabilities that strengthen our competitive position.

直接費用（direct fee）接單同樣維持強勁，使直接費用淨接單出帳比（net book-to-bill）達 1.2 倍。整體而言，我們第二季的結果與近幾季所強調的趨勢一致：在需求環境改善的持續證據支持下，取得有節奏的進展。我們仍專注於為客戶交付成果、以紀律執行，並投資於可強化我們競爭地位的能力。

Turning to bookings performance. Q2 gross business wins were $3.7 billion, an increase of 24% year-over-year and 13% sequentially with strong performance across the portfolio. Cancellations totaled $562 million, broadly in line with expectations, resulting in net bookings of $3.1 billion and a net book-to-bill ratio of 1.51x.

接著談接單表現。第二季總新增業務（gross business wins）為 37 億美元，年增 24%、季增 13%，整體投資組合表現強勁。取消金額合計 5.62 億美元，大致符合預期，使淨接單達 31 億美元，淨接單出帳比為 1.51 倍。

Awards were broad-based across customer groups and were supported by further improvement of win rates in large pharma, where we also saw the addition of some meaningful FSP programs to existing relationships. But we also saw strong performance elsewhere, midsized and biotech companies representing eight of our top 10 customers by awards in the quarter.

得標在各類客戶群中分布廣泛，並受惠於大型藥廠得標率的進一步改善；同時我們也看到在既有合作關係中新增了一些具規模的 FSP 專案。此外，其他領域同樣表現強勁；中型與生技公司在本季按得標金額計算，佔我們前十大客戶中的八家。

I was also encouraged by the scale and diversity of awards secured during quarter two with our largest 13 individual business wins, each exceeding $50 million in value sourced from 11 different customers spanning large, midsized and biotech sectors. Against this backdrop, the overall customer demand environment remains generally constructive, notwithstanding expected seasonal impact over the summer months. In quarter two, RFP flow increased 22% sequentially and 16% on a trailing 12-month basis.

我也對第二季取得的得標規模與多元性受到鼓舞：我們最大的 13 筆單一新增業務，每筆價值均超過 5,000 萬美元，來源於 11 家不同客戶，涵蓋大型、中型與生技領域。在此背景下，整體客戶需求環境仍大致具建設性，儘管夏季月份預期會有季節性影響。第二季 RFP（提案邀請）流量季增 22%，以過去 12 個月（TTM）計則增加 16%。

Following two quarters of particularly strong activity, large pharma RFP flow moderated somewhat in the second quarter, but we saw a marked increase in biotech during the same period. This is consistent with our strategic objective of addressing more of this important market, albeit that came with a higher proportion of ballpark proposals and a reversion to historical win rates in biotech as we engaged with certain customers for the first time.

在連續兩季活動特別強勁之後，大型藥廠的 RFP 流量於第二季略有降溫，但同期間我們看到生技領域明顯增加。這與我們的策略目標一致，即更深入切入這個重要市場；不過，這也伴隨較高比例的概算型提案（ballpark proposals），且由於我們首次與部分客戶接觸，生技領域的得標率回歸歷史水準。

Staying with pipeline quality, average proposal values continue to increase across the full-service portfolio, while Phase III opportunities represented approximately 50% of total opportunity volume in the quarter compared with an average of roughly 40% a year ago, a sign that customers are increasingly bringing assets into the later phases of development.

就案源品質而言，全方位服務（full-service）組合的平均提案金額持續上升；同時，第三期（Phase III）機會在本季約占總機會量的 50%，相較一年前約 40% 的平均水準有所提升，顯示客戶正愈來愈多地將資產推進至較後期的開發階段。

Taken together, these data provide further evidence that our focused commercial strategy is delivering results. We continue to focus on three clear priorities: expanding opportunity flow in biotech, diversifying our sales channels within large pharma and increasing our market share with midsized pharmaceutical customers.

綜合而言，這些數據進一步證明我們聚焦的商業策略正在產生成果。我們持續聚焦三項明確優先事項：擴大生技領域的機會流量、在大型藥廠內部多元化我們的銷售通路，以及提升我們在中型製藥客戶中的市占率。

While these efforts will take time to impact the P&L directly, we are seeing tangible progress across all three areas as our scale, capabilities and differentiated innovation strategies continue to resonate with customers.

雖然這些努力需要時間才會直接反映在損益表上，但我們在三個領域都看到具體進展；我們的規模、能力與差異化創新策略持續引起客戶共鳴。

Turning to financial results for the quarter. Revenue increased 1.2% year-over-year and 1.4% sequentially to $2.1 billion, benefiting from higher pass-through activity. Adjusted EBITDA of $327 million and adjusted EPS of $2.56 were in line with our expectations for modest sequential progression and reflected strong cost control across the business.

接著談本季財務結果。營收年增 1.2%、季增 1.4% 至 21 億美元，受惠於較高的轉付（pass-through）活動。調整後 EBITDA 為 3.27 億美元、調整後每股盈餘（EPS）為 2.56 美元，符合我們對溫和季增的預期，並反映全公司強勁的成本控管。

Elevated pass-through contribution impacted margins during the quarter and may continue to do so in the back half of the year as therapeutic mix and site location dynamics increase the volume of pass-through dollars that we expect to burn on certain studies. Based on our year-to-date performance, we are reaffirming our full year 2026 financial guidance, reflecting both the results delivered in the first half of the year and a balanced view of the opportunities and risks that remain in the second half.

本季較高的轉付貢獻影響了利潤率，且在今年下半年可能仍會持續，因治療領域組合與試驗中心地點的動態變化，將增加我們預期在某些研究上消耗的轉付金額。基於年初至今的表現，我們重申 2026 全年財務指引，反映上半年已交付的成果，以及對下半年仍存機會與風險的平衡觀點。

While our near-term focus remains on execution, on margin progression and on delivery against our financial commitments, we continue to invest in strategic initiatives that support our long-term growth, differentiation and competitive position. AI has become a foundational element of how we operate, how we deliver clinical trials and how we create value for customers. Our investment strategy is different to others. We don't see value in going all-in on chips or on enterprise licensing of generic applications.

雖然我們短期仍聚焦於執行、利潤率改善，以及達成我們的財務承諾，但我們也持續投資於支持長期成長、差異化與競爭地位的策略性計畫。AI 已成為我們營運方式、交付臨床試驗方式，以及為客戶創造價值方式的基礎要素。我們的投資策略與其他人不同。我們不認為在晶片上全面押注，或在通用應用的企業授權上全力投入，能帶來價值。

Rather, we are focused on advancing domain expertise through targeted investments in architecture and frontier models that enhance our capabilities, accelerate our trials and help us to monetize our existing data assets. In that respect, the multiyear collaboration with Anthropic announced this week represents an important milestone for ICON.

相反地，我們專注於透過在架構與前沿模型上的精準投資來推進領域專業，藉此提升我們的能力、加速試驗，並協助我們將既有資料資產變現。就此而言，本週宣布與 Anthropic 的多年期合作，對 ICON 而言是一個重要里程碑。

Combined with our partnership with Microsoft, this collaboration strengthens the technology architecture underpinning our clinical trial delivery platform and supports 3 core priorities: enhancing the intelligence layer powering Orbis, our Agentic AI platform, deploying advanced AI capabilities to improve productivity and developing domain-specific agents embedded directly within ICON's clinical trial management workflow.

結合我們與微軟的合作夥伴關係，此次合作強化了支撐我們臨床試驗交付平台的技術架構，並支持三項核心優先事項：提升驅動 Orbis（我們的 Agentic AI 平台）的智慧層；部署先進 AI 能力以提高生產力；以及開發可直接嵌入 ICON 臨床試驗管理工作流程的特定領域代理（agents）。

For customers, these capabilities have the potential to streamline study design and planning to accelerate protocol development and trial execution, enhance patient and site engagement and reduce administrative burden throughout the clinical development process. These development projects are increasingly moving from the planning to the execution phase.

對客戶而言，這些能力有望精簡研究設計與規劃，以加速方案（protocol）開發與試驗執行，提升病患與試驗中心的參與度，並在整個臨床開發流程中降低行政負擔。這些開發專案正日益從規劃階段轉入執行階段。

One example being Meridian, our multi-agent clinical monitoring platform, which brings AI-enabled tools directly into the day-to-day workflows of our global monitoring organization. Leveraging ICON's proprietary data assets, domain expertise and delivery experience, these purpose-built agents make us better, giving teams greater insight into trial status and enabling rapid decision-making in the field.

其中一個例子是 Meridian，我們的多代理臨床監測平台，將 AI 賦能工具直接導入我們全球監測組織的日常工作流程。憑藉 ICON 的專有數據資產、領域專業知識與交付經驗，這些量身打造的代理讓我們做得更好，為團隊提供對試驗狀態更深入的洞察，並支持在現場快速決策。

Standing back from the detail, these initiatives reflect our core approach to AI. That is to say we're combining leading technology partnerships with ICON's domain expertise, proprietary assets and clinical delivery capabilities to create meaningful value for customers, strengthen our competitive position over time and recognize value accordingly.

從更宏觀的角度來看，這些舉措體現了我們對 AI 的核心方法。也就是說，我們將領先的技術合作夥伴關係與 ICON 的領域專業、專有資產及臨床交付能力相結合，為客戶創造有意義的價值，隨時間推移強化我們的競爭地位，並相應地實現價值。

Alongside AI, we continue to invest in targeted growth opportunities across the business with an emphasis on expanded capabilities and accelerated growth. In China, for example, we've seen notable improvement in demand over the last 12 months, and we continue to expand our capabilities there, including significant laboratory expansion that adds specialty biomarker testing and pathology.

除 AI 之外，我們也持續在全公司範圍內投資於具針對性的成長機會，重點在於擴充能力並加速成長。例如在中國，過去 12 個月我們看到需求明顯改善，並持續擴展當地能力，包括大幅擴建實驗室，新增專科生物標誌物檢測與病理服務。

This builds on the investment in Singapore highlighted last quarter and reflects our commitment to further strengthening our lab footprint across the Asia Pacific region. These investments were rewarded during the quarter with the addition of a new partnership with a leading Chinese biotech company supporting global development programs across a broad range of full-service capabilities, including laboratories and imaging.

這是在上季所強調的新加坡投資基礎上延伸，並反映我們致力於進一步強化亞太地區實驗室佈局的承諾。本季這些投資也獲得回報：我們新增與一家領先的中國生技公司建立新的合作夥伴關係，支持其涵蓋廣泛全方位服務能力的全球開發計畫，包括實驗室與影像服務。

And these outcomes reinforce the value of continuing to invest in attractive growth opportunities while maintaining a disciplined approach to capital deployment. Our strong cash generation in the quarter further strengthened our financial position and supports our balanced capital allocation framework.

而這些成果也再次印證：在維持嚴謹資本配置紀律的同時，持續投資於具吸引力的成長機會是有價值的。本季強勁的現金創造能力進一步強化了我們的財務狀況，並支持我們均衡的資本配置框架。

We remain focused on investing in the business, pursuing strategic growth opportunities and particularly returning capital to shareholders. In closing, I'm satisfied with the steady progress that we're making across the business. Strong bookings, a constructive demand environment and disciplined execution provide a solid base as we move through and beyond some underlying challenges in business mix and to navigate the dynamic pharma sourcing trends of recent times.

我們仍專注於投資業務、追求策略性成長機會，尤其是回饋股東。最後，我對我們在全公司範圍內所取得的穩健進展感到滿意。強勁的訂單（bookings）、建設性的需求環境與嚴謹的執行，為我們在面對並逐步走出業務組合上的一些潛在挑戰，以及因應近期香港藥廠採購（sourcing）趨勢的動態變化，提供了堅實基礎。

We remain focused on what we can control, delivering for customers, executing with discipline and investing in the capabilities that will strengthen our competitive position and support sustainable long-term growth. These factors underpin our confidence in ICON's ability to continue taking share, deepening customer partnerships and capturing the significant opportunities that lie in front of us.

我們仍專注於可控事項：為客戶交付成果、以紀律執行，並投資於能強化競爭地位、支持可持續長期成長的能力。這些因素支撐我們對 ICON 持續擴大市佔、深化客戶合作夥伴關係，並把握眼前重大機會的信心。

Finally, I would like to thank all of my ICON colleagues for their continued commitment, energy and focus on delivering for customers as we partner with them to bring forward new options for the millions of patients who need them. Now I'll hand over to Nigel to take a more detailed look at the financials.

最後，我要感謝所有 ICON 同仁持續的投入、活力與專注，致力於為客戶交付成果；我們也與客戶攜手，為數以百萬計有需求的病患帶來新的治療選擇。接下來我把時間交給 Nigel，請他更詳細地說明財務狀況。

Thanks, Barry. Revenue in quarter two was $2.1 billion, representing a year-on-year increase of 1.2% or an increase of 0.4% on a constant currency basis. Compared to the first quarter of 2026, revenue increased by 1.4%, while our adjusted EBITDA expanded by 3% to $327 million, resulting in an adjusted EBITDA margin expansion of 30 basis points to 15.9%.

謝謝你，Barry。第二季營收為 21 億美元，年增 1.2%；以固定匯率計算則增加 0.4%。相較於 2026 年第一季，營收增加 1.4%；同時，我們的調整後 EBITDA 成長 3% 至 3.27 億美元，使調整後 EBITDA 利潤率提升 30 個基點至 15.9%。

While these results were broadly in line with our overall expectations, we did see higher pass-through activity than anticipated with a consequent positive impact on revenue and dampening effect on margin relative to our previous expectations. Based on year-to-date activity, there is an increased potential that pass-through activity levels may exceed our prior assumption of being approximately flat year-over-year.

雖然這些結果大致符合我們的整體預期，但我們確實看到高於預期的轉嫁（pass-through）活動，因此對營收帶來正面影響，並使利潤率相較於先前預期受到抑制。根據年初至今的活動情況，轉嫁活動水準超過我們先前「年對年大致持平」假設的可能性提高。

As we saw in Q2, this can benefit revenue while impacting reported margin percentages. Our focus remains on delivering EBITDA dollars and driving sequential improvement in both EBITDA dollars and margin in the second half with the actual reported margin percentage ultimately dependent on pass-through mix.

如同我們在第二季所見，這可能有利於營收，但會影響所報告的利潤率百分比。我們仍專注於交付 EBITDA 金額，並在下半年推動 EBITDA 金額與利潤率的逐季改善；而最終實際報告的利潤率百分比，將取決於轉嫁項目的組合。

Overall customer concentration in our top 25 customers was aligned with quarter one, 2026. Our top five customers represented 24% of revenue. Our top 10 represented 40%, while our top 25 represented 65%. Adjusted gross margin for the quarter was 23.8% compared to 29.1% in quarter two 2025.

前 25 大客戶的整體客戶集中度與 2026 年第一季一致。前五大客戶占營收 24%。前十大客戶占 40%，前 25 大客戶占 65%。本季調整後毛利率為 23.8%，而 2025 年第二季為 29.1%。

Adjusted SG&A expense was $164.5 million in quarter two or 8% of revenue compared to $174.8 million in quarter two 2025 or 8.6% of revenue. Adjusted SG&A expense in the quarter did benefit from certain items, including R&D tax credits, which we do not expect to recur in the second half of the year.

第二季調整後銷售、一般及行政（SG&A）費用為 1.645 億美元，占營收 8%；相較之下，2025 年第二季為 1.748 億美元，占營收 8.6%。本季調整後 SG&A 費用亦受惠於若干項目，包括研發稅額抵減；我們預期這些項目在下半年不會重複出現。

As I've already mentioned, adjusted EBITDA was $327.2 million for the quarter or 15.9% of revenue. This compares to $417.8 million in quarter two 2025 or 20.5% of revenue. Adjusted net interest expense was $43.4 million for quarter two. In the comparable period last year, net interest expense was $46.6 million.

如我先前提到的，本季調整後 EBITDA 為 3.272 億美元，占營收 15.9%。相較之下，2025 年第二季為 4.178 億美元，占營收 20.5%。第二季調整後淨利息費用為 4,340 萬美元。去年同期淨利息費用為 4,660 萬美元。

The effective tax rate was 18.4% for the quarter. We continue to expect the full year 2026 adjusted effective tax rate to be approximately 17%. Adjusted net income for the quarter was $198.4 million, equating to adjusted earnings per share of $2.56. US GAAP income from operations amounted to $137.8 million or 6.7% of quarter two revenue. US GAAP net income in quarter two was $72.6 million or $0.94 per diluted share.

本季有效稅率為 18.4%。我們仍預期 2026 全年調整後有效稅率約為 17%。本季調整後淨利為 1.984 億美元，折合調整後每股盈餘 2.56 美元。依美國通用會計準則（US GAAP）計算的營業利益為 1.378 億美元，占第二季營收 6.7%。第二季依 US GAAP 計算的淨利為 7,260 萬美元，稀釋後每股 0.94 美元。

From a cash perspective, quarter two had cash from operating activities of $281.3 million. Capital expenditure was $42.4 million, resulting in free cash flow in the quarter of $238.9 million. At June 30, 2026, cash totaled $928.4 million and debt totaled $3.4 billion, leaving a net debt position of $2.5 billion.

就現金而言，第二季營運活動產生的現金為 2.813 億美元。資本支出為 4,240 萬美元，因此本季自由現金流為 2.389 億美元。截至 2026 年 6 月 30 日，現金為 9.284 億美元，債務為 34 億美元，淨負債為 25 億美元。

This was a decrease on net debt of $2.6 billion at March 31, 2026, and $3 billion at June 30, 2025. We ended the quarter with a leverage ratio of 1.8x net debt to adjusted trailing 12-month EBITDA. Our balance sheet position remains strong and was further supported by solid cash generation in quarter two.

相較於 2026 年 3 月 31 日的淨負債 26 億美元，以及 2025 年 6 月 30 日的 30 億美元，均有所下降。本季末槓桿比率為淨負債對調整後過去 12 個月 EBITDA 的 1.8 倍。我們的資產負債表狀況仍然穩健，並在第二季強勁的現金創造能力支持下進一步強化。

We remain committed to returning capital to shareholders through share repurchases while continuing to invest in the capabilities, technology and solutions that reinforce our market-leading position. And with that, I believe we are ready to open it up for questions.

我們仍致力於透過庫藏股回購向股東返還資本，同時持續投資於能力、技術與解決方案，以鞏固我們的市場領先地位。以上，我相信我們已準備好開放提問。

(Operator Instructions)

(接線員指示)

David Windley, Jefferies.

David Windley，Jefferies。

Barry, the demand environment seems to continue to improve. Appreciate the detail that you're providing there. It seems like a meaningful part of it is pass-throughs. So I wanted to understand, I guess, on both sides, the kind of progression of your customer cohorts, large pharma sounds like it advanced a little bit. biotech maybe stepped back a tad in the quarter.

Barry，需求環境似乎持續改善。感謝你在這方面提供的細節。看起來其中相當有意義的一部分是轉嫁成本（pass-through）。所以我想了解，我想，從兩個面向來看，你們不同客戶族群（cohorts）的進展情況：大型製藥公司似乎前進了一些；生技在本季可能小幅回落。

And on the direct fee side of that and how that's advancing. And then on the pass-through side, understand the mix is maybe running a little hotter on pass-through. Is that also helping the revenue to run higher overall? I note that you didn't raise revenue guidance, but it would seem like the heavier pass-through could maybe push revenue above the range.

以及在直接費用（direct fee）端的情況與其進展。然後在轉嫁成本端，了解組合可能在轉嫁成本上偏熱一些。這是否也在幫助整體營收走得更高？我注意到你們沒有上調營收指引，但看起來較高的轉嫁成本占比可能會把營收推到區間之上。

Thanks, Dave. There's a bit in there. So maybe I'll start, and I'll ask Nigel to expand a little bit. I guess to start with your question on the demand environment, look, the demand is pretty healthy across the business. That is sure. But the reason we've given the color we've given is I think it's important.

謝謝，Dave。這裡面有幾個點。所以我先開始，然後我請Nigel再補充一些。我想先回到你關於需求環境的問題：你看，整體業務的需求相當健康。這是確定的。但我們之所以提供這些說明，我認為很重要。

While 1.5 is an exceptional book-to-bill, it is driven by particularly high pass-throughs. That's been a trend of late, but we've seen some high pass-throughs in the revenue line. We've seen some high pass-throughs in the bookings line. I think that's really just a function of therapeutic mix, very honestly.

雖然1.5的接單出貨比（book-to-bill）非常出色，但它是由特別高的轉嫁成本所驅動。這近來一直是個趨勢，但我們在營收端看到一些高轉嫁成本。我們在訂單端也看到一些高轉嫁成本。我坦白說，我認為這真的只是治療領域組合（therapeutic mix）的結果。

That's certainly how I interpret it and somewhat to do with the geographic footprint and where our customers seek to deploy trials and where we're advising them they can get those trials done.

我確實是這樣解讀的，另外也多少與地理版圖有關，以及我們的客戶希望在哪些地區部署試驗、以及我們建議他們在哪裡可以完成這些試驗。

But I wouldn't -- maybe I misunderstood, but I wouldn't have said demand stepped back in biotech in the quarter. It actually accelerated pretty markedly in the quarter. After two very strong quarters of RFP flow in pharma, that stepped back a little bit, moderated somewhat over the quarter, nothing unusual there. But it was a notable uptick in biotech demand.

但我不會——也許我誤解了——但我不會說本季生技的需求回落。實際上本季需求相當明顯地加速。在製藥端經歷兩個非常強勁的RFP流量季度之後，本季稍微回落一些、略為趨緩，這沒什麼不尋常。但生技需求確實出現了顯著上升。

Now when you're trying to branch out into different parts of a very large market where you haven't been before, what do you want to see? Well, you want to see that you're generating opportunity flow.

現在，當你試圖拓展到一個非常龐大市場中你以前未涉足的不同領域時，你想看到什麼？你會希望看到你正在產生機會流（opportunity flow）。

I'm happy to see that. And frankly, we probably expect a higher proportion of ballpark or water testing proposals while we do that. And we certainly saw that in quarter two. There was an uptick in the volume of ballpark. It's not to say they don't have inherent value, but the rate at which they convert is certainly different.

我很高興看到這點。坦白說，在我們這樣做的過程中，我們可能也預期會有較高比例的粗估（ballpark）或試水溫（water testing）型提案。而我們在第二季確實看到了這種情況。粗估提案的量有所上升。這不是說它們沒有內在價值，但其轉換成案（convert）的比率確實不同。

And that's as a population true and always has been. So I think the demand is pretty healthy. But it is volatile quarter-over-quarter. Like I said, you see some bouncing around on what's FSO, what's FSP, what's biotech, what's pharma. What I'm heartened by is the quality of that pipeline.

而這作為一個整體族群一直如此，也一直都是這樣。所以我認為需求相當健康。但它在季度之間會有波動。就像我說的，你會看到在FSO、FSP、生技、製藥之間有些起伏。讓我感到振奮的是那條管線（pipeline）的品質。

The work that we're bidding on, the rate at which we're being successful in competitive RFP bidding process of converting those into wins and the solidity of the pipeline is somewhat encouraging. So we know there's a lag on these things, but I'm generally encouraged broadly by the demand environment. You do see a few little aberrations in there.

我們正在投標的工作、我們在競爭性RFP投標流程中成功把它們轉成得標（wins）的比率，以及管線的穩健性，都讓人相當鼓舞。所以我們知道這些事情存在時間落差，但整體而言，我對需求環境普遍感到鼓舞。其中確實會看到一些小小的異常。

You'll see some ups and downs in areas like early phase, and that can be somewhat problematic as you step around the corner on whether it's cancels or whether it's or people or whatever. But by and large, very, very encouraging. Nigel, you might want to pick up from there.

你會在像早期階段（early phase）這類領域看到一些起起落落，而當你轉過彎來看，究竟是取消（cancels）、或是人員（people）或其他因素時，這可能會有點棘手。但總體而言，非常、非常令人鼓舞。Nigel，你可以從這裡接著說。

Dave, yes, to your question on pass-throughs and the impact on the revenue guide for the year. So look, obviously, we published our guidance revenue and EPS for the year two months ago now. We've reaffirmed it this morning. And look, both of them are a range, and so let's see where we land within the range ultimately.

Dave，是的，關於你問到轉嫁成本以及其對全年營收指引的影響。你看，顯然我們在兩個月前已發布了今年的營收與EPS指引。我們今天早上也再次確認了該指引。而且你看，兩者都是區間，所以我們最終會落在區間的哪個位置，讓我們拭目以待。

But we did talk before about -- if you look at that range, one of the factors anchoring it was an assumption that pass-through activity would be broadly stable, broadly flat year-over-year. So we have seen that be a little bit more pronounced in Q2, as we've mentioned. And obviously, you've seen the impact on our top line and bottom line. So to your point, we are tracking that to see how that evolves over the rest of the year.

但我們之前確實談過——如果你看那個區間，其中一個錨定因素是假設轉嫁成本活動大致穩定、年對年大致持平。如我們提到的，我們確實看到第二季這點更為明顯一些。而且顯然，你也看到它對我們營收端與獲利端的影響。所以如你所說，我們正在追蹤這點，看看它在今年剩餘時間如何演變。

So it is possible that if pass-throughs continue to run stronger that, yes, that would impact obviously, where we would land within that revenue range and with a consequent impact likewise on the margin evolution as we go through the year. But just to reiterate, as I said earlier, what we are focused on is progression in EBITDA dollars as we go through the year.

因此，如果轉嫁成本持續偏強，是有可能的；是的，那將顯然影響我們最終落在營收區間中的位置，並且同樣會對我們在全年過程中的利潤率走勢（margin evolution）產生相應影響。但再重申一次，如我先前所說，我們關注的是全年EBITDA金額（EBITDA dollars）的逐步提升。

So again, pleased to see that in the second quarter that we tracked where we anticipated we would. But again, to your point, yes, if pass-throughs continue to run stronger, that could obviously impact us in terms of where we land within the range. The other thing to remember when you look at that range for the full year, I do recall -- I do remember, please, that we did divest Symphony in the middle of the second quarter. So that will be a drag on revenue year-over-year in H2 that wasn't there in H1 to [H3].

所以再次強調，很高興看到第二季我們的表現符合我們的預期。但同樣地，如你所說，是的，如果轉嫁成本持續偏強，這顯然可能影響我們最終落在區間中的位置。另外，當你看全年那個區間時，還要記得一件事：我確實記得——請記得——我們在第二季中段剝離（divest）了Symphony。因此在下半年（H2），營收年對年會受到拖累，而上半年（H1）沒有這個因素，直到[H3]。

Ann Hynes, Mizuho.

Ann Hynes，Mizuho。

Great. I know on the last call, getting to the margin question, you thought you would land, I think, in the mid-16% range. And now given the higher pass-through, is there a new range that you would like models to go to? And then secondly, I know that a lot of the cost actions you're taking are back half loaded. Can you remind us the amount of that and how that's tracking?

很好。我知道在上次電話會議中，談到利潤率問題時，你認為你們會落在大約16%中段（mid-16%）的區間。那麼現在考量較高的轉嫁成本，是否有一個你希望模型改用的新區間？其次，我知道你們採取的許多成本行動是偏向下半年集中（back half loaded）。你能提醒我們那個金額是多少，以及目前進度如何嗎？

Ann, it's Nigel. I'll take both of those. To your point, yes, we talked about that at the last time out. When you look at the guidance range that we put out for the year, at the midpoint of top line and bottom line, just to take that for modeling discussions, that would get you to approximately an EBITDA margin of 16.5% for the full year.

Ann，我是Nigel。我兩個問題都回答。如你所說，是的，我們上次確實談過。當你看我們對全年提出的指引區間，以營收與獲利（bottom line）中點來看——只是為了模型討論採用中點——那大約會對應到全年EBITDA利潤率約16.5%。

To your point, if it were the case that pass-throughs ran faster through the balance of the year, and let's say, we ended up at the higher end of the range, well, again, mathematically, if you're at the top end of the revenue range, but the midpoint of the EPS range, if that's where we landed, that would lower that 16.5% down to something closer to the low 16% and obviously would impact the exit rate potentially as we head into next year for the same reason.

如你所說，如果轉嫁成本在今年剩餘時間跑得更快，假設我們最後落在區間的高端，那麼同樣地，從數學上來看，如果你在營收區間的上緣，但EPS區間落在中點——如果我們最後是那樣——那會把16.5%拉低到更接近16%出頭（low 16%），而且基於同樣原因，當我們邁向明年時，也可能影響退出利潤率（exit rate）。

Again, we're focused more on the dollars than the margin percent, but just mechanically, that would be the case. your point on the cost impacts, et cetera. Look, again, that's part of how we operate as a company, constantly adjusting our resourcing.

再說一次，我們更關注的是美元金額而非利潤率百分比，但就純粹機械性來看，確實會是那樣。你提到的成本影響等等。你看，這也是我們作為一家公司運作方式的一部分，持續調整我們的資源配置。

So we did talk about -- we've obviously continued that in H1 as well. And that is part of the EBITDA progression that we anticipate seeing in the second half that is built into that guidance range for the year.

所以我們確實談到過——很明顯我們在上半年也持續這麼做。而這也是我們預期在下半年看到的 EBITDA 走勢改善的一部分，並已納入全年指引區間之中。

Michael Cherny, Leerink Partners.

Michael Cherny，Leerink Partners。

Maybe if I can dive in a bit, Nigel, on your EBITDA dollars focus. I appreciate that as well. I'm just trying to reconcile the components to make sure we have it correct. You had a step down sequentially in gross margin, which we know about, but gross margin dollars obviously were impacted as well.

Nigel，如果我可以再深入一點談你對 EBITDA 美元金額的關注。我也理解這點。我只是想把各個組成部分對起來，確保我們理解正確。你們的毛利率環比下滑了一步，我們知道原因，但毛利美元金額顯然也受到影響。

You delivered with SG&A performance that was -- seem quite impressive. As you think about going to Ann's question as well, the sustainability of those SG&A dollars, like how do you view that relative to what you put up in this quarter against the backdrop as well as of the mix dynamics that obviously, as you've noted, are somewhat out of your control?

你們在 SG&A 的表現——看起來相當亮眼。再接著 Ann 的問題，關於這些 SG&A 美元金額的可持續性：相較於本季的表現，以及你們也提到的、某種程度上不在你們控制範圍內的組合動態背景，你們怎麼看？

Yes, Mike, I'll take that one again. Good question. And yes, the SG&A, you're right, was lower in Q2 due to the timing of some things that won't recur in H2, as I think I commented on earlier. So to be frank, I would think our Q1 SG&A number is a better run rate to think about for the rest of the year rather than the Q2.

是的，Mike，我再回答這題。好問題。沒錯，SG&A 在第二季較低，主要是因為某些事項的時點安排；正如我先前提到的，這些在下半年不會重複發生。所以坦白說，我認為第一季的 SG&A 數字更能代表今年剩餘期間的常態水準，而不是第二季。

So the implication of that, of course, being where do we see the margin progression as we go through the balance of the year will be more on the gross margin line as we see the benefits of that mix effect, as we talked about and as well as obviously, the cost actions that we have taken. So continuing still to expect EBITDA dollar progression as we go through the year, but it's going to be more on the gross margin line than the SG&A line.

因此，這當然意味著：當我們走過今年剩餘時間、去看利潤率的改善時，更多會體現在毛利率那一行，因為我們會看到我們所談到的組合效應帶來的好處，以及我們已採取的成本措施所帶來的效益。所以我們仍然預期 EBITDA 美元金額會在全年逐步改善，但改善更多會來自毛利率端，而不是 SG&A 端。

Elizabeth Anderson, Evercore.

Elizabeth Anderson，Evercore。

So I guess if we had to think about -- you said pass-throughs potentially running a little bit above flat year-over-year, which is your prior assumption on the full year expectations. I guess, can you help us maybe narrow that down? Are you thinking up a couple of percent, like just if you could help with that a little bit. And then could you also please confirm your sort of share repo plans now that you are caught up with reporting?

所以我想，如果我們要思考——你說 pass-through 可能會比年對年持平略高一些，而那是你們先前對全年預期的假設。你能否幫我們把範圍再縮小一點？你是指上升幾個百分點之類的嗎——如果你能稍微協助說明一下。另外，也請你確認一下，在你們已補齊申報之後，目前的庫藏股回購計畫是怎麼安排的？

Elizabeth, I'll take both of those. I guess the whole point about pass-throughs is we gave you a range, and we're acknowledging some volatility in the underlying landscape. So for me to pick a number higher or lower, about the same would be somewhat tricky. So I'm going to say we're sticking with the range for the obvious reasons.

Elizabeth，這兩個我都來回答。我想關於 pass-through 的重點是：我們給的是一個區間，而且我們也承認整體環境存在一些波動。所以要我選一個更高或更低、或差不多的具體數字，其實有點困難。因此我會說，基於顯而易見的原因，我們仍維持原先的區間。

But when you see some strength on the pass-through line, it is obviously possible that we might see some pull-through on that. But I don't have an updated model for you on that one. And on buybacks, no change. I think I mentioned in my prepared remarks that we were keen to get back into the market, having been out of the market for a number of quarters. That remains the plan. And I look forward to updating you guys on that when we next speak, but we certainly have some plans for Q3 and the back half of the year in general.

不過，當你看到 pass-through 這一項有些走強時，顯然也有可能帶來一些 pull-through。但我目前沒有更新的模型可以提供。至於回購，沒有變化。我想我在事先準備的發言中提到過，我們很希望能重新回到市場，因為我們已經有好幾個季度沒有在市場上進行回購。這仍然是計畫。我們下次交流時我也期待向各位更新，但我們確實對第三季以及整體下半年都有一些規劃。

Elizabeth, maybe I might just add on your first question. Maybe a way to think about it, if it's helpful, is you remember last time, we talked about Q1, our margin was 15.6% we anticipated seeing that rise by approximately 0.5% to approximately 16% for Q2.

Elizabeth，或許我可以就你的第一個問題再補充一下。如果有幫助的話，可以這樣理解：你還記得上次我們談到第一季，我們的利潤率是 15.6%，我們預期第二季會上升約 0.5 個百分點到約 16%。

We obviously did see it rise to approximately 15%, but we came in a little below rather than a little above, right? So just to kind of frame it for your context, we're probably talking a 20 to 30 basis point impact on the quarter relative to previous expectations.

我們確實看到它上升到約 15%，但結果是略低而不是略高，對吧？所以只是提供一個框架讓你參考：相較於先前預期，這大概對本季造成約 20 到 30 個基點的影響。

Sean Dodge, BMO Capital Markets.

Sean Dodge，BMO Capital Markets。

So you're coming off three really strong quarters of bookings now. In terms of composition, Barry, you called out before a bigger proportion of Phase III trials in Q1. I think you said also that you'd expect that to step up even further in Q2. If we kind of consider that?

你們現在已經連續三個季度的 bookings 都非常強勁。就組成來看，Barry，你之前提到第一季第三期（Phase III）試驗的占比較高。我想你也說過你預期第二季會再進一步提高。如果我們把這些納入考量？

And then maybe any other directional cues you can give us on therapeutic mix and FSO versus FSP, how that's just how -- if we kind of take all of that, how should we be thinking about maybe burn rates from backlog heading into the back half of the year and into next year?

另外，在治療領域組合，以及 FSO 相對於 FSP 方面，你們還能給我們哪些方向性的線索？也就是說——如果把這些都放在一起看，我們應該如何思考從積壓訂單（backlog）轉為收入的消耗速度（burn rates），在下半年以及明年？

Yes, there's a bit in there, Sean. So let me start. Look, there's more Phase II trials out there than anything else, if you look at global data, where I was talking about an uptick in the proportion of Phase IIIs was in the RFP flow. And I think it's indicative of what we talked about, which is more assets coming into the later phases of development.

是的，Sean，這裡面有幾個點。我先開始。你看，如果看全球數據，第二期（Phase II）試驗的數量比其他任何期別都多；我提到第三期占比上升，是指在 RFP 流量中的占比提升。我認為這反映了我們談到的情況，也就是有更多資產進入較後期的開發階段。

That's a good thing, right? That's good for patients. That's good for pharma, that's good for CROs simply because the survival rates of compounds get higher, the further you go into the development cycle. So we think that's an encouraging thing. It's also driving average deal size up. So there's some ancillary benefits there. In terms of the business mix, nothing major to report. We said before that direct fee and FSP is growing ahead of direct fee in FSO, and that's just part of the underlying business mix dynamics that we've talked about.

這是好事，對吧？這對病患有利。這對藥廠有利，對 CRO 也有利，因為化合物在研發週期越往後走，存活率就越高。所以我們認為這是令人鼓舞的。它也在推升平均交易規模。因此也有一些附帶的好處。就業務組合而言，沒有什麼重大事項要報告。我們之前說過，direct fee 與 FSP 的成長快於 direct fee 與 FSO，這只是我們一直在談的基本業務組合動態的一部分。

But I don't see any major departure from that other than to say, as I mentioned on our last call, these very strong book-to-bill numbers we've been looking at are driven by outperformance in FSO rather than FSP, where the numbers tend to correlate much more with revenue growth.

但我看不出這方面有任何重大偏離；只是要說，如同我在上次電話會議提到的，我們看到的這些非常強勁的 book-to-bill 數字，是由 FSO 的超預期表現所驅動，而不是 FSP；FSP 的數字通常與營收成長的相關性更高。

So there is some encouragement there. But I don't think there's anything dramatic in the sector. And in terms of TA, honestly, no major change. Oncology remains the single largest part of the book in terms of revenue, albeit -- when you look at recent opportunity flow and recent awards, certainly, cardiometabolic for ICON at least is broadly comparable.

所以這確實帶來一些鼓舞。但我不認為這個產業有什麼戲劇性的變化。至於 TA（治療領域），老實說，沒有重大改變。腫瘤仍然是以營收計算在訂單中占比最大的單一領域；不過——當你看近期的機會流與近期得標情況，至少對 ICON 而言，心腎代謝（cardiometabolic）其實大致相當。

They're both very large sections of the book at the minute. We're fortunate to have a real depth of experience in that domain, and we tend to win the significant majority of what we touch. It's also interesting to note the proportion of cardiometabolic research that's ticking up in biotech.

目前它們都是訂單中非常大的兩個板塊。我們很幸運在該領域具備非常深厚的經驗，而我們通常能贏得我們所接觸到的絕大多數重要案子。另外也很有意思的是，生技公司在心腎代謝研究上的占比正在上升。

That wouldn't necessarily always have been the case, but there's obviously a lot of attraction to obesity and obesity adjacent areas in recent times. But broadly, in terms of the diversity, I mentioned 8 of our top 10 customers by awards in the quarter were either midsized or biotech. I find that encouraging, not because we're doing less in pharma, but because we determined we wanted to do more in those sectors. So that's good.

那不一定一直都是如此，但顯然近來市場對肥胖症以及與肥胖症相鄰的領域有很大的吸引力。但整體而言，就多元性來看，我提到本季按獎項計算的前十大客戶中有 8 家是中型公司或生技公司。我覺得這令人鼓舞，不是因為我們在大型藥廠做得更少，而是因為我們決定要在那些領域做得更多。所以這是好事。

And in large pharma, as I mentioned, we've made a priority out of diversifying our sales channels. That is don't sell them one thing or the other, sell them both. And we did add a number of partnership strands to existing partnerships in large pharma with a couple of notable program additions in FSP, which is broadly encouraging as well.

至於大型藥廠，如我所提，我們已將銷售通路多元化列為優先事項。也就是不要只賣他們其中一項，而是兩項都賣。而且我們確實在大型藥廠既有合作關係中新增了多條合作線索，其中在 FSP 方面加入了幾個值得注意的專案擴充，整體而言也相當令人鼓舞。

But nothing really to add beyond that, Sean. I think it's sort of iterative quarter development rather than anything transformational in Q2.

除此之外沒有太多要補充的，Sean。我認為這比較像是季度間的逐步演進，而不是 Q2 有任何具轉型性的變化。

Jay Lewis, Baird.

Jay Lewis，Baird。

You've been talking a lot about these -- the pass-throughs that have remained elevated so far this year and potentially could in the back half. And we've seen the book-to-bills in the first quarter and the second quarter run higher on the pass-through side than the direct fee side. Usually, you talk about the bookings taking quite a while to translate into revenue given they're on the initial award.

你們今年以來一直在談這些——目前仍維持在高檔的轉付成本（pass-throughs），而且下半年可能也會如此。我們也看到第一季與第二季的訂單出帳比（book-to-bill）在轉付成本端高於直接費用端。通常你們會說，因為這些是在初次得標時確認，訂單要花相當長時間才會轉化為營收。

Do you think that we should be expecting a further acceleration in pass-through revenue as we're starting to move into 2027? Or could you give any color around that and how these bookings could end up phasing into revenue?

你認為當我們開始邁入 2027 年時，是否應該預期轉付成本營收會進一步加速？或者你能否就此提供一些看法，以及這些訂單最終可能如何分期轉入營收？

It's a dangerous game predicting the shape of awards you don't already have, Jay. But it certainly wouldn't be unexpected if we saw some sustained strength in that relationship for some time. I mean, not to repeat the answer I gave to Elizabeth, it's not unusual to see pass-through book-to-bill run ahead of direct fee book-to-bill in an environment where the market is trending towards things like oncology and large-scale metabolic disease. I don't think that's unusual.

去預測你還沒拿到的獎項形狀是個危險的遊戲，Jay。但如果我們在一段時間內看到那種關係持續走強，也不會令人意外。我的意思是，不重複我給 Elizabeth 的回答，在市場趨勢走向腫瘤學以及大規模代謝性疾病等領域的環境下，看到轉付成本的訂單出帳比領先直接費用的訂單出帳比並不罕見。我不認為那很不尋常。

I certainly wouldn't forecast it, but I would reiterate our commitment to come back to the market and give as much color as we can as these things progress because it's relevant. I've said a million times, I don't particularly mind whether the pass-through carry on a study doubles or halves. I care a really great deal about our ability to find that study, bid on that study, win that study and then deliver that study in a profitable and sustainable fashion.

我當然不會做出預測，但我會重申，我們承諾會隨著事情進展回到市場，盡可能提供更多資訊，因為這很重要。我說過無數次，我其實不太在意某個研究中的轉付成本是翻倍還是減半。我非常在意的是我們能否找到那個研究、對那個研究投標、贏得那個研究，然後以有利可圖且可持續的方式交付那個研究。

What we do need to give due regard to the pass-through, Carry, because for you guys and for investors more broadly, it does affect how you look at the difference between top line, bottom line, margin percent versus EBITDA dollar, for example. So we'll give as much color as we can. I think it would be a very brave person who sought to define it.

我們確實需要對轉付成本給予適當重視，Carry，因為對你們以及更廣泛的投資人而言，它確實會影響你們如何看待例如營收（top line）、淨利（bottom line）、毛利率百分比相對於 EBITDA 金額之間的差異。所以我們會盡可能提供更多資訊。我認為若有人試圖把它精確定義出來，那得非常勇敢。

I tend to look at it in two different respects. Are we seeing and converting as much of that market? And how are we comparing to others in the space? This is at least the third consecutive quarter where our book-to-bills are industry-leading. I think our net book-to-bill on a 605 basis is probably as good as anyone else is on a 606, and I'll take that in the short term.

我傾向從兩個面向來看。我們是否看到了並轉化了那個市場中足夠多的機會？以及我們與同業相比表現如何？這至少是連續第三個季度，我們的訂單出帳比在產業中領先。我認為我們以 605 基礎計算的淨訂單出帳比，可能不輸任何其他公司以 606 計算的結果，短期內我願意接受這點。

Justin Bowers, DB.

Justin Bowers，DB。

If you will, are you able to provide us with a book-to-bill, call it, like for the first half of the year on a 605 basis? And then on EBITDA dollars, is -- should we be thinking about the sequential step-up in 3Q similar to what we saw in 2Q over 1Q?

如果可以的話，你們能否提供今年上半年以 605 基礎計算的訂單出帳比？另外在 EBITDA 金額方面——我們是否應該預期第三季的季增幅度，會類似於第二季相對第一季的提升？

Justin, yes, so Q1, the direct fee book-to-bill was 1.3 and obviously, 1.2 in Q2. So roughly about 1.25 for H1. I don't have the number right in front of me, but it will be somewhere in that order of magnitude. And then obviously, in terms of EBITDA dollar step-up as we go through the balance of the year, again, we've obviously laid out a range.

Justin，可以的，所以第一季直接費用的訂單出帳比是 1.3，而第二季顯然是 1.2。所以 H1 大約是 1.25 左右。我手邊沒有精確數字，但大概會在那個量級。然後顯然，就 EBITDA 金額在今年剩餘期間的逐季提升而言，我們也已經給出了一個區間。

I'm not going to give you a point number. But just to reiterate, we are focused on sequential improvement as we go through the year. So you obviously saw a reasonable uptick from Q1 to Q2, and we're focused on continuing that progression as we go through the rest of the year.

我不會給你一個單點數字。但再重申一次，我們的重點是隨著年度推進實現逐季改善。所以你們確實看到從第一季到第二季有合理的上升，而我們也專注於在今年剩餘時間持續這樣的進展。

Jailendra Singh, Truist.

Jailendra Singh，Truist。

So I wanted to follow up on your comments around cross-selling initiatives I think you called out in your presentation. Which areas are you seeing the most tangible traction? Is it on central labs, specialty labs, like FSP, FSO expansion? Just curious if you can expand a little bit more about these cross-selling initiatives you're focused on?

我想跟進你在簡報中提到的交叉銷售（cross-selling）推動措施。你們在哪些領域看到最具體的進展？是在中央實驗室、專科實驗室，像是 FSP、FSO 的擴張嗎？只是好奇你能否再多談一點你們目前聚焦的這些交叉銷售措施？

Yes. I think it's a really good question, Jailendra, because it can be interpreted in a number of different ways. I mean, on the one hand, you could argue when I talk about opening up the sales channels in large pharma to sell more than one service, that's a version of cross-selling for sure. Perhaps the most impactful though, is the latter inference you make in biotech, where customers are less likely to have locked-in partnerships for certain ancillary services like central labs, like bioanalytical, like medical imaging, like cardiac safety, like site and patient support.

可以。我覺得這是個很好的問題，Jailendra，因為它可以用幾種不同方式來解讀。我的意思是，一方面，你可以說當我談到在大型藥廠打開銷售通路、銷售不只一項服務時，那當然也是一種交叉銷售。不過可能影響最大的是你在生技公司那邊的後一種推論：客戶較不會針對某些輔助性服務有鎖定式合作關係，例如中央實驗室、生物分析、醫學影像、心臟安全性、以及試驗中心與病患支援。

So one of the things I talked about over the last 18 months was making sure that we were giving the best holistic offer to those biotech customers to make sure we were upselling as many of our capabilities as made sense for the customer, not to say we're pushing capabilities at them that they don't want, but to make sure that we're effectively working across our own organization to join the dots.

所以我在過去 18 個月談到的一件事，就是確保我們能為那些生技客戶提供最佳、最完整的一體化方案，確保我們在對客戶有意義的前提下，盡可能向上銷售（upsell）我們的各項能力——不是說把他們不想要的能力硬推給他們，而是確保我們能在自身組織內有效協作，把各個環節串起來。

That's seen a significant uptick in the proportion of biotech proposals, for example, and in Labs, just to take your example, that was probably running in the high 50s a little over a year ago. It's now somewhere in the mid-70s. So that's, I think, indicative of the organization working holistically across internal departments to bring the right capabilities to these customers under one roof.

這使得例如生技提案的占比出現顯著提升；以你提到的 Labs 為例，一年多前大概在接近 50% 後段。現在大約在 70% 中段。所以我認為這顯示組織正以整體方式跨內部部門協作，把合適的能力在同一屋簷下提供給這些客戶。

Charles Rhyee, TD Cowen.

Charles Rhyee，TD Cowen。

I know people asked about sort of your expectations on pass-throughs within the guide. Maybe can you just give us a sense on what's your assumption for direct fee revenue progression maybe through the rest of the year relative to what we've seen so far in the first half?

我知道大家問過你們在指引中對轉付成本（pass-throughs）的預期。也許你能否讓我們了解一下，你們對今年剩餘期間直接費用營收（direct fee revenue）走勢的假設，與上半年目前所看到的情況相比是如何？

And then, Nigel, I think you said earlier that SG&A should step back up from 2Q -- and so then EBITDA dollar progression is driven by gross profit growth. I understand that 2Q is impacted by pass-throughs, but what are sort of the other things driving then the improvement and I would imagine gross profit dollar growth sequentially. Maybe help us understand what's going to drive that given the fact that you're talking about a higher pass-through environment on the top line.

然後，Nigel，我想你先前提到 SG&A 在第二季之後應該會回升——因此 EBITDA 金額的逐步提升是由毛利成長所驅動。我理解第二季受到代收代付（pass-throughs）的影響，但那麼還有哪些因素在推動改善？我也會想像毛利金額會呈現季對季成長。鑑於你們談到營收端處於較高的代收代付環境，能否協助我們理解接下來將由什麼來驅動？

Yes, Charles, happy to take those. Just to bring you back, as a reminder, the full year guide, when we set that, we talked about, again, just for modeling purposes, if you take the midpoint of the range, say on revenue, that essentially reflects an underlying direct fee decline year-over-year organically of around 2%, if you recall that conversation. We also then have an inorganic drag from the divestment of Symphony.

好的，Charles，很樂意回答。先帶你回顧一下，提醒一下：在我們設定全年指引時，我們提到——同樣只是為了建模之用——如果你取營收區間的中位數，那基本上反映的是直接費用（direct fee）在有機基礎上年對年約下滑 2%，如果你還記得那段討論。此外，出售 Symphony 也帶來了無機（inorganic）的拖累。

We had currency movements and the assumption at the time was pass-throughs will be roughly flat. But the direct fee component of the overall movement was about a 2% decline year-over-year. That's still, again, the guidance that we've reconfirmed this morning. When you look at H2, where do we see the margin progression, it is from, again, as we spoke about before, as we go through H2, some of those mix effects that we talked about that are impacting the margin year-over-year compared to last year mitigate somewhat as you go through the second half of the year.

當時也有匯率變動，而當時的假設是代收代付大致持平。但整體變動中的直接費用部分約為年對年下滑 2%。這仍然——同樣——是我們今天早上再次確認的指引。當你看下半年（H2），我們認為利潤率的逐步改善來自於——如同我們之前談過的——隨著進入下半年，部分我們提到的、相較去年影響年對年利潤率的組合（mix）效應，會在下半年逐步有所緩解。

And then, of course, we've also spoken about the cost actions that we've taken as well that will kick in, in a much greater degree in the second half. So it's that operating discipline around cost control as well as, again, improving mix effect as we go through the rest of the year that will drive the gross margin expansion that we're expecting to see.

當然，我們也談過已採取的成本行動，這些措施會在下半年以更大幅度開始發揮作用。因此，推動我們預期毛利率擴張的因素，是成本控管的營運紀律，以及——同樣——隨著今年剩餘時間推進而改善的組合效應。

Jack Meehan, Nephron Research.

Jack Meehan，Nephron Research。

I want to ask about the guidance range through the lens of EPS. If you look at years 2024 and earlier, the range is always a lot tighter. So I understand like the pass-throughs can have these dynamics on the top line and margins. But just where we sit today, just any comments around where you think you're trending within the EPS range? That's one question.

我想從 EPS 的角度來問一下指引區間。如果你看 2024 年及更早的年度，區間通常都緊得多。所以我理解代收代付可能會在營收端與利潤率上帶來這些動態。但就我們目前所處的位置，你們對於目前在 EPS 區間內的趨勢有什麼評論嗎？這是第一個問題。

And the second is you have this cash hoard growing on the balance sheet. Sorry if I missed it earlier, but just timing for getting back to buyback.

第二個是，你們資產負債表上的現金部位正在增加。如果我先前漏聽了很抱歉，但恢復回購（buyback）的時間點是什麼？

Yes. Thanks, Jack. Second thing on buyback, yes, we did touch that earlier on. It remains our intention to get back in the markets as we had outlined previously. The strong cash collection in the quarter improved the financial position, and we'll be pleased to do that. Returning capital to shareholders is a priority. I think your point on the EPS guide is well made. The pass-through question obviously drives significantly more volatility on the top line than it does on the bottom line.

是的。謝謝，Jack。關於回購的第二點，是的，我們先前確實提到過。我們仍然打算如先前所說重返市場。本季強勁的現金回收改善了財務狀況，我們也很樂意這麼做。回饋股東資本是優先事項。我認為你對 EPS 指引的觀察很到位。代收代付的問題顯然會讓營收端的波動遠大於損益底線的波動。

To Nigel's earlier point, we do choose our ranges very, very carefully in reiterating them. We're mindful of the same considerations. And while I wouldn't point to specific numbers, what I would say is for modeling purposes, the ranges we gave you are the ranges we're giving you again, and we put a lot of thought into it before doing that. But as always in this business, there's a lot of work to do.

呼應 Nigel 先前的觀點，我們在重申區間時，確實非常、非常謹慎地選擇我們的區間。我們也留意到相同的考量。雖然我不會指向特定數字，但我想說的是：就建模而言，我們給你的區間就是我們再次給你的區間，而在這麼做之前我們已經投入大量思考。但一如既往，在這個行業裡，仍有很多工作要做。

We've talked about step-wise progression. -- quarter-over-quarter, one foot in front of the other. The bookings on the top line are encouraging. The conversion into revenue. Somebody asked me about burn rate a minute ago, and maybe I didn't touch on it.

我們談過階梯式的進展——季對季，一步一步往前走。營收端的接單（bookings）令人鼓舞。以及轉化為營收。剛才有人問我 burn rate（消耗率），也許我沒有談到。

The burn rate itself is naturally just mathematically suppressed a little bit by the strong book-to-bills we've been posting, but I'm concerned with the underlying burn rate, how effectively are we burning those studies that are running such that we're generating revenue and then obviously, very, very careful management of our costs to ensure we do that incrementally more profitably than previously.

消耗率本身在數學上自然會因為我們公布的強勁 book-to-bill（接單/開票比）而被稍微壓低，但我關注的是底層的消耗率：我們在執行中的研究（studies）消耗得有多有效率，從而產生營收；然後當然也要非常、非常謹慎地管理成本，確保我們能以比以往更具增量獲利性的方式做到這一點。

So nothing new to give you on the EPS guide. I appreciate it is a reasonably wide range at this point in time. It's also -- just about two months since we issued the guide. And I think I would set that expectation with you guys that we're probably not going to rush back and revisit guide every 10 minutes, albeit I do appreciate having only issued it relatively late in the year, it is a somewhat extraordinary period.

所以在 EPS 指引方面沒有新的內容可以提供。我理解在此時此刻這是一個相當寬的區間。而且——距離我們發布指引也才大約兩個月。我也想跟各位設定一個預期：我們大概不會每隔 10 分鐘就急著回來重新檢視指引；儘管我也理解我們在年度相對偏晚的時間才發布指引，這確實是一段相當特殊的時期。

But comfortable reiterating it to you and comfortable with the steady progress we're making in undertaking the actions we need to deliver on those expectations.

但我們有信心向各位重申該指引，也對我們在推動必要行動、以達成這些預期方面所取得的穩健進展感到有信心。

Casey Woodring, JPMorgan.

Casey Woodring，JPMorgan。

I wanted to go back to the comment about RFP flow moderating in large pharma in the quarter, Barry, I think you said there was nothing unusual there. So just curious if you could elaborate on that piece and the outlook for large pharma in the back half.

我想回到你提到本季大型藥廠的 RFP 流量有所放緩的評論，Barry，我記得你說那沒有什麼不尋常。所以想請你能否更詳細說明這一點，以及下半年大型藥廠的展望？

And then as a follow-up, you guys mentioned investing more in China, talked about the partnership you signed in the quarter with the Chinese biotech for your expanded lab capabilities in the region. Can you maybe just frame up the opportunity in China here more broadly speaking? And is the lab business an area that you think you can win in that region?

接著追問，你們提到在中國加大投資，並談到本季與一家中國生技公司簽署合作夥伴關係，以擴展你們在該地區的實驗室能力。你能否更廣泛地框架一下在中國的機會？以及你們是否認為實驗室業務是你們能在該地區勝出的領域？

Yes. Two good questions, Casey. I guess I raised the moderation of pharma proposals in the context of saying I tend not to look at minor movements in intra-sector RFP flow quarter-over-quarter. It's inherently volatile, right? It's not so much that I would point you to an empirical conclusion rather than I would talk you away from one.

是的。兩個很好的問題，Casey。我提到藥廠提案（proposals）放緩，是在說我通常不會去看同一產業內 RFP 流量在季對季之間的小幅變動。它本質上就是波動的，對吧？與其說我會把你導向一個實證結論，不如說我會勸你不要從中得出某個結論。

We did see some fairly sustained very large value RFP flow in the last couple of quarters, and it's down a little bit this quarter. Certainly not out of historical ranges and certainly not a cause for concern. It just so happens that the biotech comparable numbers are up substantially in the quarter.

過去幾個季度我們確實看到一些相當持續、金額非常大的 RFP 流量，而本季略有下降。這當然不超出歷史區間，也當然不是令人擔憂的原因。只是剛好本季生技（biotech）的可比數字大幅上升。

And just given the quantum, I felt it was important to qualify that I think that is indicative of underlying demand, but it's also indicative of a pretty thoughtful strategy about seeing more of that market, meeting that market where it is, going through the motions of some early bidding and continuing to grow our footprint, not just of what we're bidding on, but of what we're closing.

而且考量到這個量級（quantum），我覺得有必要補充說明：我認為這反映了底層需求，但也反映了一個相當周全的策略——更多地接觸那個市場、在市場所在的位置與之對接，進行一些早期投標流程，並持續擴大我們的版圖，不僅是在我們投標的項目上，也包括我們實際拿下（closing）的項目。

So I think that's nothing earth shattering in RFP, but I hope that's clear. China, I hope I didn't create the impression that, that deal we talked about was just a lab deal. It's not. It's a full-service deal plus labs and imaging. The bigger point on China, I suppose, is it's obvious to all the significance of the surge in Chinese innovation for governments in the West, for biotech and pharma in the West.

所以我認為 RFP 方面沒有什麼驚天動地的變化，但希望這樣說明清楚。至於中國，我希望我沒有讓大家以為我們談到的那筆交易只是實驗室交易。並不是。那是一個全方位服務（full-service）的交易，外加實驗室與影像（imaging）。我想中國更大的重點是：對所有人而言都很明顯，中國創新激增對西方各國政府、對西方的生技與藥廠都具有重大意義。

It's not necessarily as obvious what that means for CROs in the West, given that a molecule born in China that gets developed out of Boston or the Bay Area, it doesn't particularly matter where the molecule was born. However, year-over-year and indeed quarter-over-quarter, whether we look at H1 over H1 or Q2 over Q1, there was a notable uptick in opportunity in China, really quite significant uptick there. Our headcount is probably up 5 points, I think, year-over-year.

鑑於一個在中國誕生、但在波士頓或灣區完成開發的分子，其實並不特別在乎分子最初誕生於何處，因此這對西方的CRO而言代表什麼，未必那麼一目了然。不過，無論是年對年、甚至季對季——不論我們看上半年對上半年，或是第二季對第一季——中國的機會都出現了明顯上升，確實是相當顯著的增幅。我們的人力編制大概年對年增加了5個百分點，我想是這樣。

On a full year basis, while China remains a relatively modest part of our revenues, revenue in China might be up as much as 20% full year '26 over full year '25. So we think it's an important market anyway, still trying to understand where we think that market goes in terms of critical mass.

以全年來看，雖然中國仍只占我們營收中相對不大的部分，但中國營收在2026年全年相較2025年全年，可能成長高達20%。因此我們認為這本來就是一個重要市場，同時也仍在試著理解我們認為該市場在達到關鍵規模（critical mass）方面會走向何處。

But for us, it's less important that we understand the end state in 2035 and more important that we build on the very solid footprint we have there, over 1,500 people in country and that we're able to partner in any one of three ways. Western companies seeking to run global trials in China, Chinese companies seeking to run global trials in China or like the example I gave you, Chinese companies going global who require a global partner to bring them beyond their own borders and into the global drug development market. And I'm pretty pleased with the progress we're making there.

但對我們而言，與其說要理解2035年的最終狀態，更重要的是在我們已建立的非常扎實據點上持續深化——我們在當地有超過1,500名員工——並且能以三種方式中的任何一種來進行合作。包括：西方公司希望在中國執行全球性試驗；中國公司希望在中國執行全球性試驗；或如我先前舉的例子，中國公司走向全球、需要一個全球合作夥伴，協助他們跨越自身國界、進入全球藥物開發市場。我對我們在那裡取得的進展相當滿意。

Michael Ryskin, Bank of America.

Michael Ryskin，美國銀行。

Maybe a quick one back to pass-throughs, just sort of like a high-level one. You talked a number of times about how elevated they are, why you think they're elevated. I want to kind of go back to that therapeutic mix component. Is there anything else that you think could be driving this?

我想快速回到轉付成本（pass-throughs），先問一個比較高層次的問題。你多次提到它們目前偏高，以及你認為偏高的原因。我想回到治療領域組合（therapeutic mix）這個因素。你覺得還有其他可能在推動這件事的因素嗎？

Or is it really just the therapeutic mix of where the studies are coming in? I know it's outside of your control, but just the 1.51 number is just sort of optically a crazy high number throughout the entire history of the industry and what we're seeing from peers. So just wondering if there's anything else besides therapeutic mix in terms of how studies are structured or just sort of like what's behind that, just put context on, again, why the pass-throughs are still elevated.

還是說真的就只是研究案源進來時的治療領域組合所致？我知道這不在你們控制範圍內，但1.51這個數字，從觀感上看，在整個產業歷史以及我們從同業看到的情況中，都算是高得離譜。所以我想了解，除了治療領域組合之外，是否還有其他因素，例如研究設計/結構方式等；或到底背後是什麼原因——再提供一些脈絡，說明為什麼轉付成本仍然偏高。

And then for my follow-up, I want to pivot a little bit back to your announcement from Tuesday, the multiyear collaboration with Anthropic. You touched on it a little bit in your prepared remarks, but would just love to hear more from you on what you think the fruits of that would be, when we could see that, how that could impact the business and the model over time? Just sort of like walk us through what you think that will look like in a number of years.

接著我的追問，我想稍微轉到你們週二的公告：與Anthropic的多年期合作。你在事先準備的發言中稍微提到了一點，但我很想再多聽你談談，你認為這項合作會結出哪些成果、我們何時可能看到、以及它隨時間如何影響業務與商業模式？能否帶我們走一遍，說明你認為幾年後它大概會是什麼樣子。

Yes, happy to, Mike. Look, that's the kind of peer comparison that doesn't keep me awake at night. That's the kind of peer comparison I spend all day trying to have. So I'm okay with it. I think the drivers, though, are beyond TA mix, which is significant, a couple of things we talked about maybe two calls ago. When you look at the rate of inflation in the cost of running clinical trials, -- it's not so much CRO cost.

好的，Mike，很樂意。你看，那種同業比較不會讓我夜不成眠。那反而是我整天都在努力追求的同業比較。所以我對此沒問題。不過我認為驅動因素不只在治療領域（TA）組合——那確實很重要——還有幾點是我們大概在兩次電話會議前談過的。當你看臨床試驗執行成本的通膨率時——其實不是那麼由CRO成本所驅動。

It's much more driven by health care inflation and particularly health care inflation in the US. We're living in a time where companies are being heavily incented to run a greater proportion of their trials in the US, which is not just an expensive market, it's also a market where expense is growing quite rapidly.

更主要是由醫療通膨所驅動，尤其是美國的醫療通膨。我們正處在一個時期：企業被強烈激勵將更高比例的試驗放在美國執行；而美國不僅是昂貴的市場，成本上升速度也相當快。

So when we think about the cost of procedures, what it costs now to get an MRI versus what it cost 5 years ago in an environment where a lot of sites, particularly major academic institutions are saturated with requests for clinical trials to run, there is something of an inflationary cycle taking place.

因此當我們思考各項處置（procedures）的成本，例如現在做一次MRI要花多少錢、相較於5年前要花多少錢；再加上許多研究中心——特別是大型學術機構——面臨大量臨床試驗執行需求而趨於飽和，某種通膨循環正在發生。

And I think that's certainly a part of it, particularly around some of the more cutting-edge research and complex therapeutics where we are very heavily represented. It's not everybody can run those trials. So I think we are going to see some of those -- but the TA mix is significant.

我認為這肯定是其中一部分原因，尤其是在一些更前沿的研究與更複雜的治療領域上，而我們在這些領域的參與度非常高。並不是每個人都能執行那些試驗。所以我認為我們會看到其中一些因素——但治療領域組合確實很重要。

I mean if you just look at the patient carry and the investigator grant carry on obesity, on diabetes, on NASH, these are expensive programs to run, and they will drive up those costs fairly rapidly.

我的意思是，如果你只看肥胖、糖尿病、NASH（非酒精性脂肪性肝炎）這些項目中的受試者補助（patient carry）與研究者補助（investigator grant carry），這些都是昂貴的計畫，且會相當快速地推升那些成本。

The Anthropic deal happy to talk about it. I think it needs to be spoken about, though, not in isolation. I mean this forms part of a broader AI strategy. An AI strategy isn't about announcing a partnership or managing by press release or counting widget. This is about a strategy to disrupt the clinical trial life cycle by embedding frontier capabilities within superior workflows. We've got to keep our eye on the prize here.

至於與Anthropic的合作，我也很樂意談。不過我認為它不應該被孤立地討論。這其實是更廣泛AI策略的一部分。AI策略不是在於宣布一個合作、不是靠新聞稿來管理、也不是在那裡數「小工具」有多少。這是一個要透過把前沿能力嵌入更優越的工作流程中，來顛覆臨床試驗生命週期的策略。我們必須把目光放在最重要的目標上。

How do we generate shareholder return? We do it by creating value for customers. How do we do that? We do it by generating better insights faster, driving speed and quality of decision-making, taking cost out and driving predictability up. That's what we're about. So when you think about AI, I tend to break it down into four key buckets. There's machine learning that helps us predict better. There's generative AI that helps us create and draft documents better.

我們如何為股東創造報酬？我們透過為客戶創造價值來做到。那要怎麼做？我們透過更快產出更好的洞見、提升決策速度與品質、降低成本並提高可預測性來做到。這就是我們的核心。所以談到AI時，我通常把它拆成四個關鍵面向。有機器學習，幫助我們做出更好的預測。有生成式AI，幫助我們更好地產出與起草文件。

There's the large language models that are the engine of that generative AI and then there's the agents, which we can delegate whole processes, things that act on our behalf. So when you think about the Anthropic and Microsoft partnerships in that regard, they're not adjacent to what we've been doing before.

有大型語言模型（LLM），它們是生成式AI的引擎；還有代理（agents），我們可以把整段流程委派出去，讓它們代表我們執行事情。因此，從這個角度看Anthropic與Microsoft的合作，它們並不是與我們過去所做的事情相互獨立或只是相鄰而已。

It's not about what's new. It's about what's next. So these are building on top of infrastructure we have already built. And I would put it to you that the Microsoft partnership is a lot about the platform. I mean there's other productivity tools and Copilot and all that good stuff.

重點不在於「什麼是新的」。而在於「下一步是什麼」。所以這些是在我們已經建立的基礎設施之上再往上建構。而我會說，Microsoft的合作很大一部分是在平台層面。當然也包括其他生產力工具、Copilot以及那些好用的東西。

But it's about creating the data lakes, having the unified ontology, having the data mastered such that you can then drive insights from structured data using these frontier AI models. That's really a lot of what the Microsoft partnership is about. It's the foundation. The Anthropic partnership is about building a better intelligence layer. Claude will be the frontier model that is embedded in those workflows.

但核心在於建立資料湖、建立統一的本體（ontology）、把資料主檔化（data mastered），使你能夠運用這些前沿AI模型，從結構化資料中驅動洞見。這很大程度上就是Microsoft合作的重點。它是地基。而Anthropic的合作則是要打造更好的智慧層。Claude將會是嵌入這些工作流程中的前沿模型。

And this is a key point. We try and differentiate not just from our competitors, but from our customers. I don't think once an adoption of generic technologies rolled out to 40,000 people is the way to go. You've heard a lot of companies, including a lot of pharma companies say they're burning way too many tokens and demonstrating way too little value. What we're about is using these models to embed the back end of work processes.

而這裡有一個關鍵點。我們試圖做出差異化，不只是相對於競爭對手，也相對於我們的客戶。我不認為把通用技術推廣給4萬人採用，就是正確的路徑。你已經聽到很多公司——包括不少藥廠——說他們燒掉了太多token，卻展現出太少價值。我們要做的是用這些模型把工作流程的後端嵌入進去。

So take Meridian, I talked with you about before, Mike, the CRA agent, having a CRA doing tons and tons of paperwork before they go to site or being able to log on to a customized homepage who knows who they are, what their workload is, what documents they have access to and point at risks, help them draft documents, help them streamline their interactions with the site, help them have better insights on how long they need to go for, whether they need someone to come with them or what risks they need to bottom out when they get there.

所以以 Meridian 為例，我之前跟你談過，Mike，那位 CRA 代理人，CRA 在到現場之前要做大量、非常大量的文書作業；或者能夠登入一個客製化首頁，系統知道他是誰、他的工作量是什麼、他能存取哪些文件，並指出風險、協助他起草文件、協助他精簡與現場的互動、協助他更好地洞察需要去多久、是否需要有人陪同，或是到達後需要把哪些風險釐清到底。

That's what we're doing here. But that's just one example, right? We're digitizing protocols that help us automate the creation of documents and databases around the company. We're upgrading things like OneSearch, which are predictive models that tell us which sites are best suited to which programs.

這就是我們在這裡做的事。但那只是其中一個例子，對吧？我們正在把各種作業規程數位化，幫助我們自動化產出公司內部的文件與資料庫。我們也在升級像 OneSearch 這類工具，它們是預測模型，告訴我們哪些試驗中心最適合哪些專案。

Smart Graft will now have a Claude back-end that helps us build on the progress we've already made, taking 30% out of the time of negotiating clinical trial contracts as well as a range of functions in the back office, which are really more directly related to productivity than capability. So as I say, it's not about what's new. It's about what's next. It's targeted, it's embedded, it's customer-centric. And ultimately, it's better. That's really what we shoot for.

Smart Graft 現在將配備 Claude 後端，協助我們在既有進展上再往前推進，將臨床試驗合約談判所需時間縮短 30%，以及後勤辦公室的一系列功能——這些其實與其說是能力，更直接關係到生產力。所以如我所說，重點不在於什麼是新的。而在於下一步是什麼。它是有針對性的、是內嵌式的、是以客戶為中心的。而且最終，它更好。這才是我們真正追求的。

Ryan Halsted, RBC Capital Markets.

Ryan Halsted，RBC 資本市場。

Maybe just a follow-up on that last point about a broader AI strategy and realizing that AI is being deployed throughout the value chain, beginning with your pharma partners in the drug discovery cycle. Just curious if you are having dialogue with your customers about this potential increased flow and need for increased capacity to handle what could be a deluge of new molecules and new drug targets.

也許就剛才最後一點再追問一下，關於更廣泛的 AI 策略，以及你們意識到 AI 正在整個價值鏈中部署，從你們的製藥合作夥伴在藥物發現週期開始。我只是好奇，你們是否正與客戶對話，討論這種潛在的流量增加，以及為了因應可能湧入的新分子與新藥物靶點而需要提升產能。

Just curious if that's something that you're seeing happening or having dialogue now and/or if you see that having an impact over the near term?

也想請教這是否是你們目前看到正在發生、或正在進行對話的事情，和／或你們是否認為這會在短期內產生影響？

There's a lot in there, Ryan. First thing I would say is I'll repeat what I've said for some time, which is I think the impact of AI in drug development may be most evident in discovery in the long term. I think it would be a very naive person to misread this landscape to suggest that there will be a deluge of capacity determining responses from advances in discovery, which take years to get in the clinic anyway.

Ryan，這裡面有很多層面。我首先要說的是，我會重申我一段時間以來一直在說的：我認為 AI 對藥物開發的影響，長期來看可能在「發現」階段最為明顯。我認為如果有人天真地誤讀這個局勢，宣稱發現端的進展會帶來一波由產能決定的回應洪流——但那些成果反正也要好幾年才會進入臨床——那就太不切實際了。

I think that distracts from the reality of these targeted investments around what AI means now and frankly, in the years immediately following now. This isn't about having to have a transformational overnight upending of the spectrum. I don't think it's realistic, and I don't know anybody credible who believes it. It's also not about the amount of things you are using. We don't measure success by the amount of systems we use. We measure it by how few, not how many, if anything.

我認為那會分散我們對現實的注意力：也就是這些針對性投資所代表的 AI 在「現在」以及坦白說在接下來幾年內的意義。這不是說我們必須一夜之間徹底顛覆整個光譜、完成轉型。我不認為那現實，我也不認識任何可信的人會這麼相信。這也不是關於你用了多少東西。我們不以使用多少系統來衡量成功。如果要衡量，我們看的是越少越好，而不是越多越好。

We don't measure success by how many times our customers have to click a button to get an insight. We measure it by how few. So this is about power. This is about insights we can generate today and the interoperability question with customers actually involves sitting at the nexus of work they do themselves, work we do for them within their environment and work we do for them within our environment and helping data and data insights flow into the hands of people who need them.

我們也不以客戶為了取得洞察需要點多少次按鈕來衡量成功。我們衡量的是需要點得越少越好。所以這關乎「力量」。這關乎我們今天就能產生的洞察；而與客戶的互通性問題，其實涉及坐落在一個交會點：他們自己做的工作、我們在他們的環境中替他們做的工作，以及我們在我們的環境中替他們做的工作——並協助資料與資料洞察流向真正需要它們的人手中。

I think that's central to understanding the power of AI in the near and indeed in the medium term. Discovery is a very, very exciting space, but I think it will be a while before we see transformational changes in the development operations landscape from things that have yet to be proven in discovery.

我認為這是理解 AI 在短期、乃至中期力量的核心。發現確實是一個非常、非常令人興奮的領域，但我認為，在那些尚未在發現端被證實的事物真正帶來開發營運版圖的變革性改變之前，還需要一段時間。

We will now take our final question for today. And the final question comes from Luke Sergott from Barclays.

我們現在將進行今天最後一個提問。最後一個問題來自 Barclays 的 Luke Sergott。

This is Anna Kruszenski on for Luke. If we could just go back to burn rates and what is embedded in your guidance for the rest of the year after the past 3 quarters of such strong bookings. Can you talk about how we should directionally be thinking about burn rates in the second half relative to the 9% in 2Q?

我是代 Luke 提問的 Anna Kruszenski。如果可以的話，我們想回到 burn rates（消耗率）以及在過去三個季度訂單非常強勁之後，你們對今年剩餘期間的指引中包含了哪些假設。你能談談我們在方向上應該如何看待下半年相對於第二季 9% 的消耗率嗎？

Anna, it's Nigel. So look, I think, obviously, we've reiterated the guidance range this morning. The burn rates, look, they likely will tick down a little bit just given what we've seen in terms of the commercial performance in H1, obviously, has impacted already.

Anna，我是 Nigel。所以你看，我想很明顯，我們今天早上已重申了指引區間。至於消耗率，你看，考量到我們在上半年商業表現所看到的情況——而且顯然已經產生影響——它們很可能會小幅下降一些。

So it will fundamentally depend on what we do in terms of book-to-bills in H2. I would say, is probably the bigger impact. So I wouldn't want to give you any specific numbers on that, but it's going to be driven by that probably more than anything.

所以它根本上將取決於我們在下半年 book-to-bill（接單對開單比）方面的表現。我會說，這可能是影響更大的因素。因此我不想在這裡給你任何具體數字，但它大概會主要由這個因素所驅動，勝過其他任何因素。

This concludes the Q&A, and I will now hand back to Barry.

問答到此結束，我現在把時間交回給 Barry。

Thank you, Sharon, and thank you, everybody, for joining today. We appreciate your continued support and the questions today. It remains a process of incremental transformation, both on the strategic side and also good quarter-over-quarter diligence and discipline as we continue to close out on the plans that we've discussed today and described today, and we look forward to come back to you in due course and update you on the next steps. Thanks, everybody.

謝謝你，Sharon，也謝謝各位今天的參與。我們感謝大家持續的支持，以及今天提出的問題。這仍然是一個循序漸進的轉型過程：一方面在策略面，另一方面也需要我們在每一季之間持續保持良好的盡職調查與紀律，因為我們會持續推進並完成今天討論與說明的各項計畫；我們也期待在適當的時候再回來向各位更新下一步。謝謝大家。

Thank you. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.

謝謝。今天的電話會議到此結束。感謝各位參與。您現在可以掛線。