Sanofi SA (SNY) 2005 Q4 法說會逐字稿

Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to today’s full year results 2005 conference call. For your information, this conference is being recorded. The 2005 full year results are reviewed by Sanofi-Aventis management. At this time, I would like to turn the call over to your host today, Mr. Dehecq. Please go ahead, sir.

Okay. Thank you to be with us, and good afternoon, or good evening. I suppose that you start, Sanjay.

Yes. Good afternoon, everybody. This is Sanjay from the Investor Relations team. I would just like to begin the meeting by the customary reading of the formal forward-looking statement.

The presentation that we make here today contains forward-looking statements as defined by the Private Securities Litigation. These forward-looking statements are not statements of historical facts. The actual results of the Company are subject to various risks and uncertainties, and these results -- the real results could differ materially from those expressed in today’s presentation.

I invite you to please read the forward-looking statement in its entirety, and I give it back to Mr. Dehecq. Thank you.

Thanks. First of all, I give the floor to Jean-Claude Leroy for the finance.

Thank you, Jean-Francois. I will comment on the fourth quarter of 2005 and the full year of 2005, and I invite you to keep the global P&L on your left side so we can comment at the same time on the various slides for the more detail on the P&L. So I will begin directly on slide number five.

As far as sales are concerned, going directly to the reported basic growth of 7% on the fourth quarter, which translates in 8.4% for the entire year of 2005, we had the favorable impact of the U.S. dollar against euro in -- as all of you know, I’m sure, during that fourth quarter.

Then, going directly to the gross margin level, if I can switch the slide - yes. Thank you, gross margin ratio. What happened during 2005, 1.2 percentage point improvement during that year for the reason we already developed together during the year, favorable product mix, purchasing efficiency and strong sales. But as you can see, during the fourth quarter, and I’m sure all of you know, we had that [generification] of the main euro group, Allegra, and those three other products in the United States. So that the gross margin was lower in its improvement during that quarter, 0.9%, due to that impact of the generic product.

Or the other way round, during the fourth quarter we had a favorable impact on the royalty side -- the royalty received from BMS and Plavix and Avapro. You know the rate of growth of the product in the States and to that you have to add up the favorable impact of the U.S. dollar versus the euro.

R&D expense. You see that there has been an improvement during the fourth quarter, plus 6.6%. We were around zero at the end of the third quarter, so that does translate into 2% on the full year. This is the beginning of the reinforcement of the R&D forces, to monitor the clinical trials -- the heavy program that Gerard will tell upon a little bit later. So that we finally see something moving up in the R&D expense during that 2005 year.

For the rest, the main concern or the main topic of the full year was the discontinuation of some of our R&D collaborations, so I am talking a little bit about synergies and I will be back on this subject a little bit later on in my presentation.

Selling and general expenses. There is an important increase to be seen in the fourth quarter, plus 12%, which translates in 4.6% in 2005. We’ve said that -- during the year that there was a huge discrepancy between the commercial expenses and the G&A expenses. This is even more true in the fourth quarter.

We’ve put a lot of expenses behind the switch of Ambien to Ambien CR. We’ve put money in order to prepare for the launch of Plavix in Japan and you know we’ve got the authorization to market during the month of January and obviously we are also prepared for the launch of Rimonabant. So that, in addition to the support to the existing products, we spent a little bit more money on these three products and that’s the reason for which we’ve had a rather important increase in these selling expenses.

To the contrary, the G&A went on decreasing during the fourth quarter. On the full-year basis now, on that 4.6% again selling were more, and I would say much more, than sales rate. To the contrary, to the opposite, the G&A was very much decreasing. I can say that it was even a little bit more than 10% decrease during the full year.

Next, I won’t spend too much time on these technical details, even though they are very important, just because I am going to feed back a little bit later on on these specific items, which were -- on which we’re used to discuss – to see the impact on the global P&L. Let’s just say that we’ve given -- I’ve given the reason for which we’ve seen an increase by only 4% of the operating income current during the fourth quarter, the generification from one side, and these efforts in order to prepare for the launch of 2006 and also for the switch of Ambien. I don’t mention the impact of employee shares on the global year. We’ve been talking of a 19% improvement of that level of the P&L.

Then, again, when we go from operating income current to operating income, we have litigation solution with Bayer during the fourth quarter. That doesn’t solve all the problems, but a lot of them. And that does translate with a favorable impact of close to €60m during that fourth quarter, which is a positive to the P&L, which is to be noticed again. We’ll come back to that in the operating -- the specific item level.

Another bunch of specific items, you’ll remember about the restructuring cost pre-acquisition programs. We are now over as of the end of 2005. You’ll remember -- I’m sure you remember that the specific [indiscernible] last year on the [indiscernible] different scope this year. We already discussed that. Oral care business disposal on which we made a gain of around €70m plus, at this level.

So after that level, we come to the financial expenses. A huge drop on this line item. More than €100m in the fourth quarter, which translates into €500m decrease during the year. Out of which the financial expenses of the debt was €50m positive in comparison during the fourth quarter, when it was $200m during the full year.

In addition to that, a certain number of gains on disposal of some biotech companies. As you can see here, lower provision for financial investment. Which all in all adds up to a market -- a gain on the mark to market on financial instruments, which do translate. Add to that €500m difference between the €245m as compared to the €739m in 2004.

Just a word on the effective tax rate. You remember that last year we said, when presenting the 2004 financials, that the fourth quarter levels were a little bit unusual, but you had better look at the entire year rate, which was 30.9%. You can see that this year we had a 31.3% effective tax rate, so I’ll just say a few words that it’s totally comparable between one year and the other.

There’s nothing special to mention on the share of profit and loss from associate and minority interests, apart that it does translate very much what happens in our alliance with BMS and Plavix and Avapro. The only thing there is to mention is that there was substantial growth from Merial, which is our JV in animal health with Merck, and this is true in quarter four and this is true for the entire year.

Then we come to the bottom line of the P&L. Plus 20% at the EPS level on the fourth quarter, plus 25.7% for the entire year at €4.74 a share. This is over a 3% increase in the ratio of net income to sales, and you can see that reaching 23.2% at the end of 2005, does compare rather favorably at -- in -- within our competitors.

What we’re used to give a look at is these selected items I was mentioning before. You see the restructuring and pre-acquisition programs, I have nothing to add up because this is something which is very well known. The gain and loss on divestment, I mentioned the oral care business, and mentioned about the companies for this year. All in all we’re close to €200m before tax. The litigation with Bayer I already mentioned.

We come directly to the conclusion, and I can give you the figures after tax, these ones are before tax. We’re talking of €7m positive fourth quarter of 2004, which is to [become that] €84m in the fourth quarter of 2005. An improvement therefore of €77m. So it’s easy to say that when we give a closer look to the performance of the third -- fourth quarter of 2005, we’re talking of performance which is closer to a plus 15% at the EPS level than the 20% we saw on the previous chart, the general chart of the P&L.

If I looked at, as I already mentioned, the effective tax rate during the fourth quarter was not representative in ’04, a better year, so there is an advantage in the comparison. Let me tell you that the underlying growth in the quarter -- fourth quarter of ’05 as compared to the same quarter in ’04 was rather around 10% at the EPS level.

Back on the full year, the figures, global figures translate to minus €5m for the entire 2004, when it comes up to €168m after tax in 2005. Again, making the comparison between ’04 and ’05 without these selected items, it’s fair to say that the 26.1% of increase in the net result translates into 22 -- plus 22.6%, and that does also translate around plus 22% at the EPS level.

A word about where we are on the synergy and restructuring cost level. We said earlier in the year that we would do on a cumulative basis over 75% at the end of this year. As you can see on this chart, precisely 87% reached, so let’s say that we’re close to 90%. €1.4b out of the €1.6b we mentioned when we [last year] operation with Aventis. So we’ve been quicker than we figured out that we would be, and that therefore there are only a few remaining amounts to be put in addition to the P&L next year. But the great majority of the synergies are already there.

As far as the restructuring costs are concerned, we figured out we would reach a cumulative €2b before tax. As you can see, we reached €1.6b by the end of last year, which means that we should be under -- largely under the €2b target which we mentioned in 2004.

Going through the cash flow information, all what I have said translates in a very important improvement in 2005. As you can see on this chart, the free cash flow generated during 2005 reached €4.3b. It’s worth mentioning that the securitized receivables which existed up to the end of 2004 did not exist any more at the end of 2004 -- 2005. That does mean that we did refinance the selling of receivables for close to €500m. So it’s fair to say that during 2005 we had free cash flow of around €4.8b, which can be compared to the €4.1b and even more to €2.7b, because in 2004 we had a set disposal of €1.4b, and as you can see in 2005, a set disposal and acquisition equal balance to zero. So the gearing is very favorable at the end of 2005 - 21.2%.

I will not comment, probably, on the balance sheet. Only to say that there is a very important favorable currency effect, mainly dollar, because all in all, on the full balance sheet, it does amount to €6b. I won’t give any more detail, I guess that you’ve caught up all the details. As through the previous presentation, I am ready and happy to answer any questions on this one.

The Board of Directors yesterday decided to propose to the AGM to give €1.52 per share dividend out of this result, which is close to 27% increase over last year. And it’s fair to remember that if we look a little bit behind, it will have been 130% dividend growth over the last five years.

Then a word, to finish up, on the guidance for 2006. We said plus 10% on the adjusted EPS level. Obviously, this is despite the full impact of generics in the United States, mainly of Allegra. This is also taking into account the substantial launch costs of Plavix in Japan and Rimonabant, and should add up the continuation of the conversion, or the switch, from Ambien to Ambien CR. And this is also assuming €300m after tax of selected items, the one we described earlier, as compared to this €168m I described for the full year 2005.

This €300m I was referring to is the theoretical amount of the capital gain on disposal of Exubera. The exact amount will be known a little bit later on during the quarter number one when the closing occurs with Pfizer.

Something very important to finish up. This guidance has been based on an exchange rate of €1.25 to the dollar, and the sensitivity is 0.6% to a cent, which translates, if I were to take for example €1.20 which is closer to the existing situation, it would be an appreciation by 3% at the EPS level, so I guess that tells you and explains how we came up to that plus 10% guidance for the full year of ’06.

Thanks, Jean-Claude. Hanspeter for the operations, now.

Yes, good afternoon. I will be accompanied this afternoon by Wayne Pisano for our Vaccine Division, and by Pierre Chancel for Global Marketing. What we would like to share with you is first of all to have a very fast glance back to 2005, to compare our guidance in terms of our sales and performance with what has been achieved. Second, to introduce you finally and completely to the world’s leading vaccine company, which is of course Sanofi-Aventis. We would like to have a look with you to the major launches foreseen for 2006.

To the end of the presentation I will come back and give you some insight into our leadership positions in tomorrow’s key market of pharmaceutical industry, and last but not least, of course, an outlook of what we expect in terms of performance inside the operations for 2006.

So, first glance then back to 2005. Once again, you will remember our guidance, which has been first of all to have a performance which is in line with the previous year, 2004. Second, a performance superior to the pharmaceutical markets everywhere, and third a performance with the base business which is supposed to be stable.

If you look at this first chart, here you see that evidently we have been growing our pharmaceutical sales and our vaccine sales in total by 9%. You are of course aware that by the end of the last year, in the fourth quarter, we had some accidents in the U.S. in terms of the appearance of generic products especially in competition with Allegra, so if you would take those effects out, our growth would even have been, I admit, in a very virtual way, but our performance would have been even 11%.

You see further from the chart that we had an exceptionally good year in terms of vaccines, which have very strongly contributed to the overall development of the Group with a growth of more than 27%. And yes, last but not least, we have achieved another year where our base business, which still represents about a third of our sales, has been stable. Which means within in our guidance.

Now, from a geographical point of view, as the chart shows we have out-performed in all parts of the world the pharmaceutical market. This is especially true for the U.S. market. You know that the growth of the U.S. market has decelerated during 2005 and as I just mentioned that the appearance of generic products has burdened our performance but nevertheless I find this quite impressive to see. Despite those events, our growth in the U.S. has been nearly twice the growth of the pharmaceutical market.

So I ask now Wayne Pisano to step up and give us his presentation of our vaccine activities in the U.S. and outside the U.S. Wayne.

Thank you, Hanspeter. I have the remote. Sanofi Pasteur is the world leader in vaccines. We produce 1.2b doses in our seven manufacturing sites, two of which are in France, one in the U.S., one in Canada, one in China, one in Thailand and one in Argentina. These vaccines prevent over 20 diseases, and protect over 500m people.

In 2005 our consolidated sales was €2.1b, up 26.9%. This growth was driven by all franchises and across all business units. Our international business unit was up over 15%, our Canadian business unit up over 10%. The U.S. was up over 33%, and our sales to the joint venture in Europe was up 21.6%.

In Europe we have a joint venture with Merck and Company. It’s a 50-50 joint venture. Sales were €688b in 2005.

Our sales were driven across our entire franchises and the main drivers were influenza, meningitis and booster vaccines for adolescents and adults.

Looking at our influenza performance, we were up almost 27% globally, with the main driver being the U.S. marketplace, up 35%. Growth was driven by increased demand, the initial production of H5N1 avian vaccine, and by competitors’ supply problems that were experienced both in North America and in Europe.

In the U.S. we experienced three very successful launches. The first was a product called Decavac. Decavac is a tetanus-diphtheria vaccine that is preservative-free, and it replaces an older vaccine that contained tetanus and diphtheria that contained a preservative. Menactra is a quadrivalent conjugate vaccine for meningitis. It protects against four serotypes - A, C, Y and W135. The product was launched in March 2005 and generated €179m of sales in its first 10 months.

After mid-year we received licensure for Adacel. Adacel is an adolescent-adult booster for tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis, and in the first five months Adacel generated sales of $26m.

In terms of influenza, we are the world leader in influenza in terms of basic revenue and manufacturing. We have two main manufacturing sites, one in France, and one in the U.S. Our global capacity for intra-pandemic vaccine is 165m doses, and that is in comparison to a global capacity of 300m for the entire industry.

We expect to see significant growth in the influenza marketplace and have taken the necessary steps in terms of our capacity. We’re building a new facility at this moment in time in the U.S., which will increase our capacity for intra-pandemic influenza from 50m to 100m doses, and in France we’re putting in place a new filling and packaging facility, which will double our capacity in terms of filling and packaging, which will allow us to deliver more doses faster to the marketplace.

We expect market expansion to occur across all markets globally, driven by a number of reasons. For example, in the U.S. the CDC has a program called ‘Healthy People 2010’. Their goal is to immunize 150m Americans. Today, to put it in perspective, 80m to 90m Americans are immunized on an annual basis.

Looking at South East Asia, there’s tremendous opportunity that has -- heightened by the fact of the avian flu that’s been circulating. Government officials and policymakers have come to the realization that it’s necessary to increase the intra-pandemic immunization in order to have the capacity when and if there should be a pandemic. And to give you a perspective on that, in China there are 1.3b people, and today there are 20m people immunized. India, there’s 1b people, and there’s virtually no immunization for flu. So both of these would be tremendous growth markets over the next 10 years.

We’ve had very strong collaboration with Governments and policymakers worldwide, as related to pandemic planning and preparedness. We have strong relationships with the NIAID, with HHS, the EU Government as well as the Government in Australia. Michel DeWilde will take you through our pandemic pipeline later in the presentation.

In terms of Menactra, Menactra was launched in the U.S., and this is the first launch for what will hopefully be a global roll-out. We believe Menactra will be a blockbuster, achieving over €1b of sales by 2010. In the U.S. Menactra is indicated for 11 to 55 years of age, and we expect continued uptake in this category in 2006. During the course of 2006 we expect the approval for our supplemental BLA for two to 10 years of age, and we’ll launch that indication during the course of the year.

We also expect licensure in Canada in 2006, and we’ll launch that around mid-year, and we’ll be filing the Menactra BLA for two to 55 years of age in Europe either in the end of ’06 or early ’07. In addition, our childhood development program, which is designed to take Menactra down in age, under the age of two, has completed its Phase II and is entering now Phase III in 2006.

Finally on Menactra, we are basically in the process of building a new facility which we expect to be online in 2008. This facility will have a capacity of a minimum of 20m doses, and will allow us to take advantage of the global demand for this product.

In terms of Adacel, the adolescent and adult marketplace is one of the growth opportunities in the vaccine industry, and this category is expected to grow significantly over the next 10 years. Adacel is a vaccine that provides immunization for tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis. This is a product indicated for adolescents, from 11 to 55 years of age, and it is a product that is well tolerated because there’s lower diphtheria content.

Pertussis, or whooping cough, some people think it’s eradicated and in fact it is not eradicated and is on the rise globally. And while the disease is generally mild to moderate with adults, the disease can be very severe with high morbidity and mortality for infants. Based upon this, the ACIP has recommended that all adults and adolescents that come in close contact with newborn children under the age of 12 months should be immunized to stop the transmission of pertussis from adolescents and adults to children. Yesterday, the ACIP recommended that all healthcare workers be immunized as well.

In Europe, we see major opportunities in our joint venture with Merck, and expect business to grow significantly over the next five years. The joint venture covers 19 countries. We have 29 vaccines for adults and 26 childhood vaccines, and have -- are the market leader with a 36% market share. The joint venture is in the midst of an unprecedented period where they’ll be launching six new vaccines over the next several years. Last year we launched Pediacel, which is a polio-pertussis-hib pentavalent in the U.K. and the Netherlands. This has become the standard of care in the U.K.

We’ll be launching ProQuad, which is a combination of measles, mumps and rubella, and varicella, and this combination will help increase immunization rates, particularly for chicken pox, throughout Europe. This will be followed by three launches from the Merck pipeline - Gardasil, which is HPV, RotaTeq for rotavirus, and Zostavax for zoster or shingles. This launch period will culminate with the launch of Menactra, which again will be filed late this year or early in 2007.

The vaccine marketplace is expected to double over the next five years. By 2010 we see the market reaching €15b. This growth will be driven by new vaccines which include Menactra, the boosters such as Adacel and [Repravax], HPV, rotavirus, zoster and new flu products. We expect to see growth beyond 2010 due to the fact that there are a number of unmet medical needs, such as diseases for dengue, malaria, the [staphoriates], HIV and cancer.

Sanofi Pasteur is well positioned for growth. We have a leadership position in influenza, meningitis and boosters, and are doubling our capacity to take advantage of these opportunities. We will be launching two pentavalent polio-pertussis-hib products in the U.S. and internationally over the next several years. Pentacel, which is similar to Pediacel - that’s what was launched in the U.K. - will launch in the U.S. in 2007, and Pentaxim will launch internationally in 2007 and 2008.

As you’ll hear later, we have a very promising pipeline. We’re making the necessary investment to expand our capacity to meet the growing needs, and we will share all the key drivers with our own portfolio or through our joint venture with Merck. We have a very strong relationship with the policymakers globally, such as Unicef, WHO, CDC, and the bottom line is we are very optimistic about the vaccine marketplace and about Sanofi Pasteur’s future in growth.

Thank you.

Thank you, Wayne. Let me now guide you through the launches of 2006, the intended launches. You should note that all of those products I will present to you have been deposited this year, so it is some of them are already approved, others are in the process of getting their approval.

So let me start with Ambien CR. You may remember that we had received an approval letter for Ambien CR in April 2005, and subsequent to this, having had then obtained an approval in October 2005. The first results of Ambien CR, as you see from the chart, are entirely satisfactory. I think they are even impressive. On the left side of the chart you see the penetration of the product compared with two benchmarks of the industry, one Nexium the other one Paxil and you see evidently that the penetration is faster and higher.

On the right side of the chart you see the second positive effect of this launch. You see that after months of stagnation and also an impressive first in-march of a new competitor in the market, that this has changed. The competitor is no more really growing, and you see that the overall portfolio of Ambien came back to a very solid growth.

I can report to you that the prescription growth for the month of January 2006 is about 14%, which means we are really back to growth rates we had last seen in, let’s say, mid-2004. So I can only add to this, and also this has been recorded by us during the last quarter, we have received the [regress] from the Federal Drug Agency, who perform clinical trials in pediatric use of Ambien, which is a hopeful first indication that there may be even a longer period before the product will not become accessible to generic competition.

Second product we have already launched in Germany with significant success. This has been reported in previous sessions. This is Apidra. Apidra goes in the fast and vastly growing market of diabetes. We are today in the launch of Apidra in the U.S. All the other European markets will follow step by step, and of course we are very much encouraged by this success. We have so far [obtained] this Apidra in Germany, which was not at all hindered by parallel introductions of competitive agents from other companies.

If you look to the overall market segments of diabetes products, you see that Apidra, which is accompanied by its big partner Lantus - by the way, Lantus became our eighth blockbuster during 2005, still very, very impressive growth rate of 50%, approximately, in 2005. So in short, that’s the Lantus market then the Apidra market are the two markets really driving the overall diabetes segment, so in very short terms it is the good place to be and we are happy to have the two adequate products to continue to drive those market segments further.

Third important project in terms of launch in 2005 is, finally, Plavix in Japan. The Plavix has been finally approved in Japan and we are today in the final negotiations to obtaining price and reimbursement in Japan. This has been a very long process. We have used this process on the regulatory side in redefining our collaboration with our long-term partner, Daiichi. As you know, we have obtained 100% of the rights to market Plavix in Japan, which changes the flow of the economics in a very substantial way and it is in our favor.

We go today in a fast-growing market segment. You see that the antiplatelet agents, in terms of treatment, these are currently growing by 33%. This is a market which has not seen any innovation for many, many years. This makes us equally optimistic, as of course, big franchise Daiichi has acquired, during many, many years with [ticlopidine], the predecessor of clopidogrel.

Firstly we believe this is a long-term opportunity. Consequently we are very active in lifecycle management. We intend to expand the usage of the product in the direction of acute coronary syndrome as of 2007 or 2008, so to make it short, yes, we have important ambitions for Japan and we think that on the long run, Plavix will become a Japanese blockbuster for itself.

Before finally going through the Rimonabant, as I’m sure you are eager to hear more on Rimonabant. Nevertheless, another product which tends a little bit to be overlooked, Multaq dronedarone as INN. Multaq goes into a very important, very strongly growing market. The market of arterial fibrillation.

Why is this market growing? You see it from the chart, as the first indications the disease is largely related to age, and we see growing age within the aging pyramid of the Western countries. It is clear that this market will significantly grow in the upcoming years.

We have deposited the Multaq file in June 2005 and the first reactions of the FDA are imminent for the next weeks or months. On the overall development from a clinical point of view, [indiscernible] will make some comment in a couple of minutes.

From this chart you see very impressively what the market potential will be over the next years. You see that there will be more or less tripling the market between 1999 and the mid-2000s, as a consequence to what has indicated before, aging pyramids. And on the other side we have a market which is by far not satisfied. All those products which are currently on the market have [is a] problem on the efficacy side, or on the side effects side, in the sense of organic toxicity or even of both sides. And we believe to have this dronedarone Multaq a product which will meet this market in a very impressive manner.

Now last, but definitely not least [technical difficulty] Pierre in fact has become a true specialist for this exciting drug. So, Pierre.

Thank you, Hanspeter, and it’s my pleasure to present Rimonabant today.

First of all let me start in framing the scope of what we are talking about when we speak about cardiometabolic risk, abdominal obesity and related commodities.

Everything starts with abdominal obesity, and speaking about abdominal obesity, this is this fat, this visceral fat around the abdomen, and when you have fat in excess what does happen is that it’s not any more a storage organ, but abdominal fat becomes a real endocrinal gland, that triggers a cascade of bad events or bad secretions, if you want, that lead to an increase of the cardiometabolic risk, such as dyslipidaemia, low HDL and high triglycerides. Such as insulin resistance, leading to diabetes and such as inflammation, and inflammation, you know, is involved in the arterial genesis.

Speaking about abdominal obesity, I need to give you the cut-off, and the cut-off according to the American guidelines are 40 inches for the man and 35 inches for the woman. Which means that, going to the next slide, you can see that, in terms of epidemiology -- on an epidemiological standpoint, we are talking about, according to the last wave of NHANES, which is wave four, we are talking about 100m American adults that suffer from abdominal obesity.

The second point is that this abdominal obesity is not alone, because there is a lot of related co-morbidities, such as hypertension, such as diabetes, and dyslipidemia. And the point is that if we put things in perspective for abdominal obesity, for instance, these -- according to the last wave which was NHANES 3, was concerning one third of the adult American population, and the last wave concerned one out of two, 50% of adult Americans. When you consider diabetes, it’s almost the same figures so which means that, unfortunately, the physiopathology is very well connected with the [inaudible].

Now, looking at the next slide, this to me really makes the point about the fact that we should consider not only the single risk factor such -- or individual risk factors such as obese -- such as diabetes or dyslipidemia, but we should really now consider a global approach, a comprehensive approach in terms of morbidities, such as these morbidities that we can find in the cardiometabolic patients. Same thing for the management of these patients, and it legitimates actually one point, which is the fact that we have to take it as a comprehensive approach.

The last point, but not the least, is that when we consider the [inter heart] better, inter heart that have 15,000 patients, you can see that when these metabolic risks occurs in the same population or in the same patient, the risk is not simply -- or the total risk is not simply the addition of all these risks, but it’s exponential which makes even more dramatic the problem posed by or caused by these metabolic factors, or cardiometabolic factors.

Then last, let me call or let me talk about Rimonabant now, and I will summarize the RIO program and in the RIO program is four studies, RIO Europe, RIO North America, lipid and diabetes. And this program involves almost 7,000 patients. And the beauty of these trials showed that, first of all a great result that I will comment, and the second thing is a very consistent data across the four studies.

So what you find is obviously a decrease of abdominal obesity, obesity and abdominal obesity, and the related co-morbidities, such as a decrease of diabetes and improvement of lipidic parameters, but also hypertension parameters. This is one point.

The second point is that, beyond this weight loss effect, we were able to show and to demonstrate a 50% additional effect beyond weight loss, which is absolutely unique. This is true for the diabetes parameter, 50% additional decrease of HbA1c which was not weight-related and 50% improvement of the dyslipidaemic parameters, increase of HDL, decrease of triglyceride, which were not again weight-related.

The explanation actually is about the special and unique mode of action of Rimonabant CB1 blocker. In the abdominally obese patient, the CB1 system is over-activated and Rimonabant actually is putting down or putting to a kind of normal way, the CB1 system, which means that you get to -- or you get back to normal.

Then, if I comment just a little bit [that adds up] all the figures, the intra-abdominal decrease was about 10% and you have to consider that 10% of abdominal decrease represents 30% of intra-abdominal fat, which is actually the bad fat if we oppose it to the periphery fat.

Now the diabetes parameter, almost 1%, 0.8% decrease of HbA1C and 15 to 20% increase of HDL and a 15% decrease of triglyceride, which means that with this product you have a unique compound for the first time, actually, managing cardiometabolic risk on a comprehensive way and bringing several advantages on multiple cardiometabolic risk factors.

Now, let’s think a little bit about the future because we got some great data on the RIO program. So the reason why we wanted to have a complete and very comprehensive lifecycle management program that could enable us to leverage this product or the data for the full benefit of the patient in all the components of the cardiometabolic’s risk.

Program Ambitious, that is based on two dimensions, first the metabolic dimension and the cardio dimension. The metabolic dimension, if we consider diabetes, so we will target three populations. One is the Serenade study with the first line diabetes. Second is the Arpeggio study involving inseminized patients with Rimonabant. Third one is the Rapsodi study involving pre-diabetic patients defined by IGT, impaired glucose tolerance.

So this is for the diabetes program. The dyslipidaemic program is the Adagio program and, if I go to the second dimension which is the cardio one, one will be the [plaque], plaque stabilization, with the Stradivarus and Auditor studies and, last but not the least, actually, the big M&M, morbidity and mortality study, that ultimately is aiming to show a reduction of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality using Rimonabant. So, a very complete and comprehensive lifecycle management program.

Now, let’s go back to the data and get back to, let’s say, what we have now and, actually, I’m very proud to see the publication actually we got with this RIO program. RIO Europe Lancet, RIO Lipids New England, RIO North American JAMA, four really prestigious medical reviews that clearly show the interest and the recognition that the medical community, not only for the area or so for the disease, but also for the product and the data. And this led to the amount of, huge amount actually, of oral presentations, posters and abstracts.

When we try to compare what it means after some of the launch, so we got the [pre-med] database and you can see on the slide that, actually, the number of Rimonabant publication is not ridiculous at all.

Now, this is what we have done and what we do in terms of activity, but let’s speak or start to speak a little bit about the outcome. And, regarding the outcome, it’s about Rimonabant awareness in the U.S., so this is a U.S. database, amongst GPs, cardiologists and endocrinologists, and you can see a massive improvement between 2004 and 2005 in terms of Rimonabant awareness.

[Obviously] this increase or this awareness is greater in the specialist, or at the specialist level but it’s quite normal because, for the time being we have been really communicating at the key opinionators and the specialist level.

Now, I have to say one thing that it’s not those specialists that were involved in any Rimonabant program. These are specialists, randomized specialists or GPs that you can find in the U.S., so these are real data representing the real awareness of Rimonabant in the U.S.

We are working, obviously, beyond the involvement and big energy that we put in participating to AHA, ADA or EASD or ECC, the big congresses, the worldwide congresses. We are also running some programs like the Submit, on cardiometabolic risk. So this year, 2006, will be the third edition of the cardiometabolic Submit. Goal is with 1,000 key opinionators worldwide, to really work on the development and the knowledge of the cardiometabolic risk and the new approach in this area.

Another thing which is what we do at the patient or public level, and an example is the World [Out] Day, so shape the nation [after] September 2005, sorry, and we’ll do it in 2006. And then the goal is still the same, to make sure that there is a good understanding and knowledge about cardiometabolic risk, but then it’s a different audience. So it’s TV, it’s radio, it’s newspaper, it’s thousands and thousands of patients that were exposed to, during this day, were exposed to cardio -- the knowledge of cardiometabolic risk and so took their waist perimeter. So you see, a point and the opportunity to start to really increase awareness about the cardiometabolic risk.

Last, but not least, let me show you the provisional launch schedule and you see a period in the U.S., in key countries and the rest of the world. And let me finish in conclusion, just two or three things.

Point one is that the disease is there, morbidity is there. A huge number of patients are freeing from cardiometabolic risk and this abdominal obesity, with related co-morbidities. So this a problem and we need to do something about it.

The second point is that we have a fantastic product with Rimonabant, that for the first time and I insist for the first time, was able to demonstrate a unique mode of action, so a unique benefit in being able to address multiple cardiometabolic risks factors with one single agent.

And, I would say last but not least, it’s about our ambition, ambition to deliver and do the best for, not only the product but, obviously, for the patient, because we are convinced that this product, if we put the right level of energy at the physician level, at the patient level and at the payer level, we’ll be able to change and re-define the way cardiometabolic risk will be managed. Thank you.

Yes, hello again. So before closing I would like to draw your attention to a part of our geographical reporting which is usually called rest of the world, a nomination which is probably not adequate for many angles.

You know we said this part of the world has been an important part of our Company strategy from the very beginning, in line with our leitmotif ‘no small countries’. We believe that this leitmotif became even more important during 2005 as a consequence to the obvious slow-down of the growth of the American market.

So where do we stand? First of all, perhaps, let’s go back to 2005 and, as you see from the chart, already in 2005 this part of the world, rest of the world so to say, has contributed in an important and impressive manner to our overall growth, nearly €0.5b of sales. In other words, approximately a fourth of our overall growth in 2005 came from those markets.

If you look to a sub-segment once again which became rather popular with the abbreviation BRIC, Brazil, Russia, India, China, you see, of course, the very well known differences on one side. Yes, it is true that this market today still represents only 3.5% of pharmaceutical industry sales. But on the other side, yes, it is also true it represents about 43% of the world population, and it’s fair to say that a number of problems our industry has comes exactly out of this disproportion.

Nevertheless there is change. If you look to the left side, the bottom of the chart, you see that those four markets alone already today present €17b of sales and what is even more impressive is the strong growth, the strong growth which is, in 2005, about 2.5 times the growth of the world pharmaceutical market.

Now where do we stand? We have a very good position. As you see, we are the leading Company in those BRIC countries and, even with some distance to the second leading company. What is further encouraging, we have a market share of 4.5%, which is approximately one point below our world market share which means, despite our first position, there is significant opportunity for even immediate growth, only by stepping up in those markets to the usual level we have within the pharmaceutical industry.

To get there what do we do? First of all, yes, we invest. We invest in our commercial structures. We have increased our presence in terms of reps in those four markets during the last year, by 30% and we count today 4,000 reps in those four markets only and, of course, China plays a very important role within.

But even more important we have a local approach, because those markets, besides the common abbreviation, they have, in fact, very little in common. So we feel they have to be approached with local strategy, but always with an integrated strategy in all those countries. We are present in research, we are present in production and, yes, we have huge supplementary opportunities, complementary opportunities, by the combination of the vaccine business with the pharmaceutical business, and we believe that this is another very important advantage for this Company.

So let me summarize what is the outlook from operations for 2006. First of all, we believe that 2005 once again has been another year which is building a very, very solid basis for the following year, 2006, in this case. In 2006 we believe that our growth will continue to be driven by [directions] of cost, but also by numerous opportunities coming from the new products which I could point out to you.

We will continue to drive our base business and we are convinced that we will continue to have relative stability with this base business despite unfavorable interventions, for example, in terms of price reductions, but we are convinced that we will stabilize -- continue to stabilize products, at least on a volume basis.

And last, but not least, I believe I was successful in showing you that we have a very, very good starting point in those future growth markets as [the free segment] and, yes, we will also take advantage of this and this, overall, makes us very confident for the ongoing year 2006. And I thank you for your attention.

Thanks Hanspeter. Gerard, for R&D.

Hello everybody. As you know we have 129 products under development but maybe more important, we have 55 products in Phase II and III. One year ago we had 48 products in Phase II and III, meaning that we were able to accelerate the development of our compounds. Don’t forget that we have 18 compounds in Phase IIb and 17 compounds in Phase III.

So, Michel DeWilde, who is the R&D boss of vaccines in Sanofi Pasteur and myself we’ll go through the seven areas. Let me start with the cardiovascular area.

Apart from dronedarone that we filed last summer, we have four compounds in Phase IIb, two for PAD, one for atrial fibrillation and one for hypertension and diabetic nephropathy.

Dronedarone, the action date is April this year and 40% of the patients were requited in the Athena clinical trial, meaning that we are on track for the huge clinical trial with dronedarone. Dronedarone is a compound which is administered by IV. SSR149744, which is in Phase II an atrial fibrillation and which is a back-up of dronedarone, is administered once a day. And, as you can see here, we finished the recruitment of the Phase IIb trial with this compound in atrial fibrillation for those versus placebo and amiodarone as a calibrator. In other words, we’ll have the results of this Phase IIb by the end of this year.

Two compounds then enter Phase IIb. AVE7688 in hypertension and SL650472 in PAD. This compound is a sedative antagonist of 5HG1b and 5HG2 receptors. These compounds possess anti-platelet activity, antiviral conflictive activity and anti-proliferative activity. We just initiated a Phase IIb study with these compounds in PAD.

XRP0038 that was tested in PAD, the results of this Phase IIb study will be presented at the ACC this coming March. This compound is a gene therapy with FGF and we tested it in very critical patients with critical leg ischemia. Thanks to the introduction of the gene of FGF, we were able to stimulate the production of vessels, in other words, to stimulate [angio genesis]. One more time, these results will be presented at the ACC, March this year.

And we plan to start a Phase III study before the end of the year, versus placebo one more time in critical leg ischemia, the primary endpoint being amputation and death. Here you have the results of AVE7688 in hypertensive patients. This compound is definitely active starting at 10mg but, as you know, with such a compound the key issue is no more efficacy, it is safety, so this is why we just initiated a very large, broad-ranging trial with more than 700 patients [for this was] tested versus [iosartan] and with the long-term safety assessment of one year.

A few words about thrombosis. You all know that, in 2006, we’ll have quite a few of results in this area, but I will mainly focus my presentation in thrombosis on the so-called biotinylated idraparinux, SSR126517, that is artificially put in Phase IIb right now, and I will explain to you why because we’ve started Phase III studies with this compound before the end of the year, and the last time you saw this compound it was only in Phase I. In fact, it is a totally new and totally innovative approach and I’ll try to explain to you why.

So as you know, and as already mentioned by Hanspeter, we got the approval of Plavix in Japan and the Charisma results will be presented at the ACC in March. Moreover, the Extract results -- the results of the Extract trial on Lovenox will also be presented at the ACC in March. The Van Gogh program of idraparinux will be presented at the ASH before the end of the year. And, as I mentioned to you, the biotinylated idraparinux, SSR126517, the Phase III study will start second quarter of this year.

All the anti-thrombotic agents, all the anticoagulant agents have roughly the same main side effects, which is bleeding, and it’s not so easy to get an antidote versus this bleeding. So, we got the idea to introduce a “hook” on the compound that might allow immediate “fishing” and rapid elimination of the compound in case of bleeding, and it’s particularly important when you have a compound that you want to administer once a week with a very long half-life. But, for sure, the hook should not impair the interaction between the pentasaccharide and ATIII. This hook should not impair the interaction of this complex pentasaccharide/ATIII with the factor Xa and, for sure, the hook should allow quick and efficient fishing.

You have here, roughly let’s say, schematically, the chemical [circle] of this compound, idraparinux, a spacer and biotin, no chance for the link with ATIII and for the link of this complex with anti-Xa. And thanks to Avidine, which has a very important affinity for biotin, this association will lead to rapid elimination of the compound. So in fact for this synthetic oligosaccharide which carries biotin [moiety], we have exactly the same sequence as idraparinux, the same anticoagulant activity as idraparinux in vitro, a very high affinity for ATIII, a strong and specific inhibition of factor Xa, no HIT reaction, the same pharmacokinetic properties as idraparinux whatever the species we tested, leading to once-a-week administration and I will present to you the comparison of the pharmacokinetics of the biotinylated idraparinux with -- to idraparinux in humans.

This compound has the same anti-thrombotic activity as idraparinux in pharmacology, especially for the prevention of venous thrombosis and, like idraparinux, a low hemorrhagic effect. Moreover, biotin is covalently bound to idraparinux, and this leads to a strong and specific affinity for Avidin versus the antidote.

So here you have the comparative phmarcokinetic of biiotinylated idraparinux versus idraparinux in human volunteers at equimolar dose and, as you can see, really the pharmacokinetic profiles are superimposable, no difference at all. And again, whatever the species we use, with biotinylated idraparinux and idraparinux.

The antidote is an injectable protein. Avidin binds to biotin with a very strong affinity, 10-15M. No other ligand has been described so far. This antidote Avidin is devoid of any pharmacological activity, especially no pro-thrombotic activity. It is rapidly elimination by IV injection, for instance, the half-life is around two minutes in rats, and this injection of Avidin leads to a quick elimination of the bound biotinylated idraparinux from the circulation and that’s what I will show to you in this slide.

Have a look on the right part over a 12-hour period. Avidin infusion leads to a dramatic and very rapid neutralization of the factor Xa activity, as you can see roughly 90%. We administered 9mg of biotinylated idraparinux, which is the triple of the potential active dose, in other words, trying to mimic a possible bleeding. And again, one more time, 100mg of Avidine leads to a rapid and large neutralization of factor Xa activity, and have a look on the left side, without evidence of any rebound.

So right now, thanks to a bridging with idraparinux development, thanks to the Van Gogh program and following a kind of end of Phase II meeting with the authorities, we start the first quarter this year a bioequipotency study with idraparinux and the biotinylated 3mg idraparinux, and the second quarter of this year, a clinical study in patients with pulmonary embolism and DVT, double blind versus warfarin. One more time, I’m sorry to insist a little bit, this is definitively a very innovative and totally new approach for a new type of compound for new anti-thrombotic agents.

A few words about CNS. This is certainly, or possibly, the richest part of our portfolio and, as you can see, we have six compounds in Phase III and two compounds in Phase IIb. And most of these compounds are first in class and this is also the case for compounds in early development. There is not enough time to comment too much on these compounds.

As mentioned by Hanspeter, we received a written request for pediatric indication coming from the FDA and pre-clinical and clinic programs are ongoing, that is to say toxicological studies in juvenile animals and clinical trials in patients with ADHD which suffer from insomnia.

We have, as I mentioned to you, six compounds in Phase III, two in neurology, two in psychiatry, one in sleep disorders, one in smoking cessation, four of them being 13+. We got one negative result in alzheimer’s disease. We were unable after 12 weeks’ treatment to get back any increase in memory of patients treated by SL650155, so we decided to stop the development of this compound. And I will present to you a positive result in Phase IIb in sleep disorders with M100907.

Like eplivanserin, this compound is a 5HG2A receptor antagonist. This compound induced [slowest] sleep, induced let’s say the good sleep -- an increase in the good sleep. It’s a qualitative effect on sleep. And we performed a four-week double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized study, three doses versus placebo and we got two types of measurements - polysomnography and patient-reported measurement.

And, as you can see in the next slide, by using objective measurements, that is to say polysomnography at 2mg, this compound decreased the number of awakenings and increased WASO -- and decreased WASO in a very significant manner. Subjective measure decreased WASO and even increased total sleep time. So, that is to say that, one more time we validated the hypothesis of the effect of 5HG2A receptor antagonist on sleep maintenance insomnia at 2mg per day, four-week treatment, M100907 decreased WASO and the number of awakenings. It improved day-time functioning and does not induce any re-bound or residual effect the day after. And this compound was very well tolerated.

A few words about oncology. We have four new [chemotherapy TT] in Phase III, tirapazamine, XRP9881, a new taxoid compound that was currently tested in patients which are resistant to taxoid administration, either in monotherapy or in association with other agents. Alvocidib, we mentioned to you that following results for a new regimen obtained by NCI, we are currently starting a Phase III study in CNL, especially in resistant patients. And we have xaliproden, which we already mentioned to you last time, the effect of this compound of the protection on neuropathy induced by oxaliplatine. It was, for sure, quite important for the patients which were treated by oxaliplatine, but it was also very important study for xaliproden, showing that this compound was neuro-protective in humans.

Also on tirapazamine, you know that it’s a unique mechanism of action. This compound is more important in cells which are under low oxygenation. That is to say that it is more potent on cancer cells than on normal cells, that’s why we are testing this compound in radiation in association with cisplatin in head and neck cancer. The first study, all the patients were recruited, and we’ll have the results by the end of this year. For the second study [250] patients were approved.

We got one negative proof of concept study in small-cell lung cancer. This is a very small indication and the truth is we were unable to detect activity of meclinertant in a very small sub-population of patients that you were unable to describe, so we decided -- and to identify, so we decided not to go on with this compound.

And finally, the second Xenox study with xaliproden already started. But I just wanted to talk a little bit more on VGF Trap, the compound that we could develop with Regeneron. With [antiandrogenic] agent, this hypothesis was, for sure, validated by compounds like Avastin and, you know, we have very, very good results in Phase I. For sure, these are open studies but you know we got, even in safety, very few hypertension, only grade two and very few. And we got a penalty in very resistant patients.

You know that in Phase I we have always resistant patients. Very impressive results with this compound, even in monotherapy, which leads us to extend our collaboration with Regeneron to Japan. And our friends from Regeneron will present to you very soon more data on VGF Trap. Yet again, we try to speed up as much as we can because apparently this compound seems to be very efficient and, for an anticancer agent, very safe.

Metabolic disorders, for sure I will say a few words around Rimonabant. I just also would like to add that we have two compounds in Phase IIb, a GLP1 agonist in diabetes and a back-up of Rimonabant, and I will present results with this compound.

So as you know, in the non-approvable letter that we received on Rimonabant, the FDA asked us to perform an additional clinical study in smoking cessation. But in the approvable letter, no additional trial in obesity has been requested by the agency and we will meet the FDA in the coming weeks to address all remaining issues. And I’m pretty sure that you will understand that we’ll not comment any more on Rimonabant because we first need to meet the FDA and to work with them on the Rimonabant dossier.

As I mentioned to you, I will present to you positive results with another CB1 receptor antagonist, the SR147778. To my knowledge, it is the first time that another compound, apart from Rimonabant, will present efficacy in a Phase IIb study. Moreover, as we mentioned here to you, AVE0010, a GLP1 agonist, entered Phase IIb. We could develop this compound with Zealand Pharma and will compile four doses versus placebo, BID versus QD, with a classical primary endpoint which is HbA1c.

Here is the protocol on this Phase IIb study that we performed with the second CB1 receptor antagonist. It’s rather classical, a little bit different of a Phase IIb trial that we performed with Rimonabant, but roughly as you can see here, at 20mg this compound, both on weight changes and on weight circumferences and weight circumference changes, seem to be roughly similar to Rimonabant.

However, there is a qualitative difference. This compound is less active than Rimonabant on cardiometabolic parameters, such as HDL, triglyceride or HdA1c. So a qualitative difference in efficacy, possibly this compound is less peripheral than Rimonabant. Concerning the safety profile, definitively this compound seems to be similar to Rimonabant. As you can see here, patients with any adverse events, roughly 72% in placebo, 68%, 20mg SR compound. Serious adverse events, 4.8% placebo, 3.8% the SR compound, and patients -- discontinuation due to adverse events, 7.2% under placebo, 14% under SR.

And the reason of these discontinuations were similar to Rimonabant. As you can see here, the main side effect of this compound are GI disorders, diarrhea and nausea, or some CNS effects such as insomnia and dizziness. And, in fact, the discontinuations were linked to both -- either GI disorders or CNS side effects. So, one more time, this is the first time that another CB1 receptor antagonist presents activity in obese patients. One more time, it validates the blockade of CB1 receptors, although we got some qualitative difference on cardiometabolic parameters. One more time, this compound seems to be less peripheral than Rimonabant.

A few words about internal medicine though, as you know, we could develop with Altana, Alvesco and our friends from Altana will comment on the ongoing study that we have with Alvesco. And, concerning the Phase IIb, with the association of Alvesco with ciclesonide with formoterol, we do hope to have the results of this Phase IIb before the end of this year, but I will focus my presentation mainly on the V2 receptor antagonist. But I just would like to remind you that we got the approval for fumagillin in France for microsporidiosis, which is an orphan disease [covering a huge area] for patients who suffer, for instance, from AIDS. For sure, it’s a niche market but we are very proud to be able to help these people.

So here I will present to you positive results of this compound in SIADH, in syndrome of inappropriate expression of antidiarrhetic hormones. And you can see here that in this euvolemic situation, the response rate of the placebo of both studies was between 11 and 13%, with our V2 receptor antagonist, it was between 80 and 90%. So a huge effect, as I previously showed to you in other clinical trials.

But if we consider the serum sodium, we got exactly, for sure, the same results, no significant effect under the placebo treatment and always a very positive effect on sodium serum with the V2 receptor antagonist, both at 25mg and 50mg once-a-day administration.

So, don’t forget that this dilutional hyponatremia is under-diagnosed and under-treated, and you have more [by the end of the book] concerning dilutional hyponatremia. Our V2 receptor antagonist significantly corrected this hyponatremia in all the populations, whatever the underlying diseases - CHF, liver failure, SIADH or mechanism euvolemia hypervolemia. So we’ll file these compounds before the end of this year for these clinical indications.

And if you don’t mind, I’ll stop right away and my friend, Michel, will go on with the vaccines.

Good morning. This slide depicts our current pipeline for vaccines with 21 products in development and one more at the registration stage. As alluded to by Gerard, there were positive movements in the Company pipeline overall, and this is also true for vaccines since we have 10 products moving along in the value chain. Today I’ll opt to describe very briefly two -- three areas. One is a combination vaccine for infants. The second one, inevitably, is influenza but I also want to touch a word on our dengue vaccine project.

Our prospects for 2006 are to move 10 products through the value chain. Wayne alluded to a couple of instances, especially in the meningitis field in terms of moving, for instance, the [inaudible] up to Phase III. The other two are products that we move to Phase III this year are related -- are, actually, in the influenza field where, obviously, we want to maintain our global leadership.

In terms of line extension, my second management, we are looking at the two extremes of each range. We are looking at the possibility to fulfill the un-met medical need in the young infants, six weeks to six months of age. On the other hand we are looking at improving efficacy of the vaccine in the elderly ISC population and, as a matter of fact, during 2005 we could demonstrated a new formulation actually increases an immune response in this population and we’ll move into Phase III this year.

In December we announced our collaboration with Becton Dickinson in what we call the micro-injection system, with the willingness to move away with traditional intramuscular injection in order to both improve patient convenience and effectiveness of the product.

We’ve been, actually, working on this for a couple of years with Becton Dickinson having chosen flu as our primary target and this program, actually, which is exciting, has been going quite well and we will initiate Phase III also this year.

Last, but not least, in terms of new manufacturing technology that is replacing embryonated eggs production system by tissue culture system. This is a technologically challenging project, but we believe we have taken the option with the most potential, having partnered with Crucell and the PFC6 [second line]. As you may know also, this program is supported by the U.S. Government. We are on track with the program entering the clinic, with both a classical and world inter-pandemic trivalent vaccine, as well as a pandemic prototype vaccine later this year.

Talking about pandemia, I’d just like to point out that the first two clinical trials conducted with an actual H5N1 prototype vaccine was conducted with vaccines that we produced, either by the National Institute of Health with our prototype vaccine produced in [Sisport], Pennsylvania, or our own development using antigens produced in our [Val de Hoetz] in France, which we conducted clinical trials that indicated safety that, not unexpectedly for a naive population, two doses are required for an optimal response. And the highest dosage tested with aluminum gave responses in 60% of the subjects.

And the next step for this particular one is to go on into Phase II and then file from their a mock-up dossier with a European agency. There’s a process that they have actually designated but it’s extremely important towards the work on reducing the actual dosage needed in order to be able to provide, in the case of pandemia, an appropriate capacity, so dose-sparing activity and we will be very active on that this year.

In terms of combination vaccines, I’d like to point out two of them. Pentacel, for the U.S. market, that was filed mid-last year. It’s a very substantial file. Beyond being as efficacious as the individual component, an important point for combination vaccine are the safety profiles and, in particular, we were very attentive on fever, since this had been a concern for some of this type of vaccine, as you can see from the chart there. In terms of Pentacel there is no difference between the actual combination vaccine and the individual component. So I think it’s a very strong point for this vaccine.

On the other hand, and we are now addressing the international market for which we are developing, and we are actually in Phase III at the moment, a combination vaccine that would include acellular pertussis and HepB balance but, most importantly, an inactivated IPV balance. This, in line with our preparedness for the time where polio will actually be eradicated, time after which the use of live vaccines or PVs will not be appropriate anymore.

In terms of dengue, maybe a less known disease, yet a very significant medical need. There are over 100 countries affected by this family of virus that’s actually transmitted by [inaudible], namely, mosquitoes. The fact that the area where the specific species of mosquito that carries -- that can transmit the virus is actually larger than the endemic area brings with it the risk of further expansion of the disease epidemiologically.

It’s a very delicate vaccine to develop. We need to induce long-lasting immunity against four serotypes, which leaves the [inaudible] field to develop -- or attempt to develop live vaccines for this. With live vaccines comes the delicate balance between efficacy and [innocuity], and this was after several years of development research to opt for the Chimerivac technology from Acambis which takes advantages of the well-known profile of yellow fever as a backbone, and this truly we believe is the appropriate technology to effectively achieve this balance between safety and efficacy. We have positive Phase I data and we have entered Phase IIa with our candidate vaccine towards the end of last year.

Lastly, collaboration and partnerships are an integral part of the way we do business and the way we do research and development. Starting if you will, from the bottom of the list which also represents the most [upstream] in the pipeline. We have an agreement with Agensys in terms of identifying tumor associated antigens for our cancer vaccine program. We’ve made a [steady] partnership with EISAI about the very interesting compound, a so-called tall receptor agonist, which is an adjuvant for cellular -- cell mediated immunity, which is very relevant in a number of our projects, most of them in the most upstream part of our pipeline.

I think we’ve communicated abundantly on interaction with the U.S. Government in the field of pandemia preparedness. And finally, I mentioned it earlier, agreement with Becton Dickinson which goes beyond flu. It’s covered many fields and we are especially excited with this partnership, because we see in it there’s a true opportunity for a paradigm shift in the way we -- in the way immunization is both perceived and efficacious. So on this, I will give the word back to Gerard.

As a small and quick conclusion, let’s have a look on the calendar of the planned submissions. Let’s say, before the end of 2008, we’ll be able to file 11 new chemical entities and seven vaccines. In fact, concerning vaccines, it does not include the vaccine that will be launched by our joint venture with Merck in Europe and that were presented by Wayne previously.

Concerning the new chemical entity, it does not include the line expansion that you have in the next slide. So, in other words, starting from these 11 new chemical entities, if we add the three that were already filed, dronedarone, Rimonabant and ciclesonide, that means 14 new chemical entities. Plus the seven vaccines, around 20 filings and even if we apply, let’s say, a classical attrition rate of 50%, that will mean that we’ll file 10 -- we’ll have 10 submissions before the end of 2008.

And for that reason that makes us very optimistic about the future of the pipeline of the Company. And if you don’t mind, I will stop right away. Thank you for your attention.

Thanks Gerard. That’s the line expansion. So, just to close this long speech and [inaudible] presentation, and to give you the opportunity of taking the floor, I will just go back to some figures. Remember two years ago and just at the moment of the launch of the bid on Aventis, we promised you a certain number of things.

The first one was to push a strong growth. I think that ’05, which is the first complete year of this merger with a net sales increase by 9.3%, despite the fact that we lost the petition on [Allya] during the last quarter, is something which is on line with our target. You understand that our growth was ahead of pharma market in all the different regions.

You understand also that the re-launch of the vaccine sales was very important, with more than 25% of growth in ’05, that’s a big success, and after some other launches. The second point was, not only a strong growth, but a sustainable growth. And for that we need the success of research, it’s clear, and we have a long presentation of our portfolio and the fact that we have now 55 products in Phase II and III in place of 48 last year is a very positive sign.

The second point was to increase -- to continue to increase, to re-enforce the sales team all around the world, and especially in the big growing markets and that’s what we have done during ’05. And also, to invest in some production and, for example, it’s necessary -- it’s not enough to say that we’ll double the size of the vaccine business in the next five years, we need also to prepare this story by investing in production in vaccines. That’s what we have done in ’05.

Third point, we say that that we need strong, sustainable and profitable growth and, if you look at the figures, it’s clear that the earnings per share, with 26% this year, a growth of 26% this year, after 18% in ’04. The fact that we are close to 90% of our cumulative synergies, so we delivered the synergies quicker than expected. Other important point also is the fact that we reduced, again, debt from more than €14b to less than €10b, and that’s something which is important for the future but also for the health of the Company.

So, I think that -- excuse me, okay. If I’m looking, I don’t go back to what we said about ’06. I think we can answer your question on our targets for ’06. But, if we are looking at ’06 to ’10 yes, I read like you, that the environment is tougher and tougher, that the pharma business is more and more difficult and so on. But what is clear is that this market retains enormous potential.

And the reasons are the healthcare needs in many, many therapeutic areas. We have some of them on this slide. You see that we are in all these different therapeutic areas, in terms of product, in terms of research. I think that the ageing of the population and the wider access to healthcare is something which is clear for you.

So in this environment what we can do? I continue to think that Sanofi-Aventis is very well positioned for the success. We have a proven strategy. I think that this famous story of no small country, no small product is now more and more also the words of our competitors. We are a leader in innovation. If we look at our successful products on the market, we have a lot of blockbusters, even if you can, and I’m sure that you will, ask some questions of some of the products. We have a lot of blockbusters today on the market and great hopes for the future. That’s what we tried to explain by the presentation of the research.

The fact that we are so well balanced between U.S., Europe and the Rest of the World is also something, in my mind, very important. It will be -- it could be more and more important for the future like the position in tomorrow’s key markets.

If I look again at the next years, major launches expected, I don’t go back to that. What is clear is that, if we look at ’07 to ’08, yes, about 10 submissions before the end of ’08. That’s something which could be important -- is important and could be interesting.

And if I’m looking more after to ’09 to ’10, it’s clear that a significant number of filings expected amongst these 20 potential R&D projects. So, to conclude I think that yes, we will continue our policy. I think that we are in a leading position in many high growth therapeutic areas. Again our balanced development geographically is something interesting.

What is also interesting is, you remember this Company -- remember the position of this Company which has now merged inside Sanofi-Aventis some years ago. If you look at the figures, if you see the profitability of these companies some years ago, it’s totally different from the profitability today. And the level of our profitability today in front of our turnover, you know, is one of the best of this industry.

Certainly, if you look at the fact that we pay, certainly, more taxes than our -- many of our competitors. But that is something which is important for the future, a high level of profitability. After I spoke about the blockbusters and what we have in front of us. So we continue to remain with our goal, strong, sustainable and profitable growth. Thanks very much.

So now, we give you the floor.

Thank you. [OPERATOR INSTRUCTIONS]. We’ll take our first question from Tim Anderson with Prudential Securities. Please go ahead sir.

Thank you. I know you can’t say too much on Acomplia. I have four questions on Acomplia, hopefully, they are in your comfort zone. The first is, on your Serenade trial, when will your final data from that be in your hands?

The second question is when we’ll hear from you following your meeting with FDA on Acomplia, because you keep saying you can’t say too much until you have that meeting. I’m wondering what the form’s going to be for that. Would it be a press release or maybe your March 22 meeting in the U.S., or what exactly?

The third question is your updated thoughts on whether that drug still might go up before an FDA advisory panel?

And then the last question just relates to your news announcement last Friday, on FDA issuing a decision on weight management and on smoking cessation. You didn’t mention regulatory decisions on other indications I think you filed on. Does this mean those are still under review, or that you just haven’t said what FDA did on those, or that they are somehow embedded in the weight management indication?

Okay, again one more time, we are very sorry but we don’t want to comment anything, including the PI for sure. We are not discussing the [inaudible] yet with the FDA. Please, I do hope that you can understand that we just need to meet the FDA and to work with them on the dossier and that’s all.

And concerning the Serenade study, we do hope to have the results of this compound by the end of this year or beginning of 2007.

Okay, and just how about that other question about when we’re going to learn more about your meeting with FDA?

No, no. First of all, we have to meet them and we don’t want to say anything about that. Please understand that our first priority is to meet them and to work on the dossier and not to communicate on that.

No, I understand. I guess my question is, following that meeting, are we going to have to wait until the April earnings call or something like that, or what do you anticipate?

Too early to say. We didn’t meet the FDA yet.

Okay, thank you.

We don’t intend to communicate on an ongoing basis with our discussions on the FDA.

Thank you.

We’ll move on to Andy Kocen with Redburn Partners. Please go ahead sir.

Thanks for taking the question. I’ve got a couple of questions. I think there are a number of ex-U.S. patents expiries on Amaryl around this sort of time. Could you comment on the magnitude of sales at risk of generic competition?

And the second one is on your associate income and the Bristol-Myers territories JV. The margin of the Bristol-Myers JV increased strongly historically, up to 2004, but it didn’t -- the net profit margin didn’t increase in 2005, despite 30% on the top line. Could you explain what’s going on here and what we should expect for 2006 and beyond? Thanks.

Well, I take Amaryl. As you know probably we have, in some countries already, generic competition where we have the usual picture. We work with different generics. We work with authorized generics and we usually succeed to keep about 40 to 50% of the volume sales.

In other markets the patent is off, but we don’t have yet generic competition. For example, this is the case in France, where we put the same measures in place as, for example, in the U.S. And then there are other markets where the patent never has been branded or exercised like, let’s say, Poland or other Eastern European markets, where the product continues very, very strongly in terms in volume and in value. So if I sum this up, I think we will be more or less able to keep the sales stable when we have bottomed the loss of patent in the U.S., which will then be in the second half of 2006.

So, we shouldn’t expect major declines in the ex-U.S. sales of Amaryl?

No.

Right thanks.

And now we move on to Lehman Brothers with Jo Walton. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. I know it’s a little early to look at 2007, but I wonder if you could tell us whether you expect the launch costs that you are going to incur in 2006 to continue into 2007, and whether you could tell us a little bit about your longer term R&D plans?

I wonder if you could also talk a bit about what your objectives are in sales or, perhaps, market share terms for Plavix in Japan? With Daiichi still selling Ticlid and with their interest in [plasugrel] in the future, how significant do you think they’re going to be as a marketing partner for you for Plavix?

And as you have spoken a lot about the joint venture with Merck in vaccines, I wonder if I could push you to say a little bit about the profitability of that? You have suggested that Merial profitability went up strongly in ’05. Was this an investment year, perhaps, for the vaccines joint venture?

And, I know you can’t tell us too much about the profitability, but over time, would we expect this to be as profitable as a typical pharmaceutical company?

Perhaps, I pick up the launch costs issue first. It’s difficult to answer Jo, it depends of course when we precisely will launch Rimonabant and, within our overall launch cost estimates, Rimonabant by far plays the most important role because dronedarone is a very, very attractive product also commercially, but it’s so attractive because it will go into a very selective target group. So the launch costs of Rimonabant is by far the most important.

In general terms, I would say, if we would succeed to launch by mid-2006, just to get into a kind of scheme, the launch costs in 2007 would be about the same as in 2006. Now if we launch later, the launch costs, evidently for 2006, will be higher.

Plavix target sales, we have said earlier that we believe that Plavix, over the years, will become a Japanese blockbuster. You may remember that maximum sales of ticlopidine have been close to $450m. This is now years ago because ticlopidine and Aventis, all other products, since many, many price decreases.

You see from our presentation that the market, with 33%, is strongly growing and you see further that we will do more or less the same kind of lifecycle management with Plavix in the Japanese market as we have done before. Next step will be as of 2007, latest 2008, the usage in acute coronary syndrome and, of course, [inaudible]. And I believe it’s fair to say that there will be some-out-of label use right away from the launch.

So, then the plasugrel issue. Look, I would not like to disclose too much about our agreements, but I just assure you that we have found adequate ways to protect ourselves. It is clear that if Daiichi would go on a launch plasugrel in Japan, we would discontinue even with a certain period of wash-out, the co-promotion of Plavix. So we take this product very serious, plasugrel. But on the other side, we hear that a launch in Japan is not very realistic before 2008 or, perhaps, even beyond.

Okay, as far as our joint ventures with Merial, you well know that we cannot disclose the precise figures. Now we mentioned earlier that Merial has been doing very well in ’05 and better than ’04. As for us, the vaccine JV is cancelled.

You will remember that, in ’05, we have a setback which we had to stop in the market, so you can imagine that profitability did not improve very much this year. Now as for us the future is [cancelled].

You’ve heard from Wayne Pisano that they expect the product launch in the years to come and I would just like to mention the others, even [Rotatech], which are going to be launched in Europe in the years to come. Thus it is fair to say that we’re going to invest to prepare and launch this product and then expect a huge improvement in this European JV in the years to come.

Can I just also ask why you’re going the drug Rimonabant and not Acomplia? Is there a change in name?

Well, it is true that we have so far no clearance for Acomplia as a trademark in the U.S. This is part of our conversations and there is a clear option that we would go with a different trade name in the U.S. than Acomplia, but there is no final decision yet.

Thank you.

And now we move on to Graham Parry with Merrill Lynch. Please go ahead sir.

Good afternoon. Just following up on some financial questions. Looking at cost of goods as a percentage of sales and SG&A as well in the fourth quarter with your launch costs and, obviously, the generic competition you’re seeing much higher percentages. I was wondering, with the ongoing generic competition launch costs in 2006, whether this would be a good basis for us to be forecasting going forward?

Secondly, I’ll try one on Acomplia. You’ve said no new studies needed in weight management. Does that extend to no new data needed, in terms of additional analysis of existing studies?

And thirdly, on guidance for 2006, can you confirm whether that includes an assumption of generic Ambient in the fourth quarter? Perhaps you can give us a little bit more feel for what the actual mechanics are, and the timelines for getting the exclusivity extension on the patent. So, for instance, do you actually have to complete the pediatric studies, or do you just have to have started them?

And then finally, one question on M100907. Perhaps you could just explain a little bit more between the objective and subjective WASO and TST measures. It seems to us that the objective measures don’t seem to achieve statistical significance, but are these the ones that you would be using in Phase III and which you would have to file on? Thank you.

Concerning the last question with the 5HG2A which is an antagonist, don’t forget that we have a very small number of patients and that’s only to choose the dose and this study was built up for that. We definitely believe that the right dose is 2mg and, you know, with more patients in Phase III and with more objective and subjective measurement, for sure, we’ll know more about this compound.

Don’t forget that we have two compounds, one which is already in Phase III with this mechanism of action, [eprivanteril], and that we validate one more time this approach with these compounds. Again, it’s too early how we’ll position both compounds but, in any case, we’re very happy that we were able to validate this hypothesis.

Concerning Rimonabant, as you mentioned, you try, -- okay you try, that’s all. We don’t want comment more. Sorry again for that.

Now when it comes to try to get a detailed guidance on each line item of the P&L, I’m a little bit sorry that I won’t give any answer. Just I mentioned this morning that, as far as the R&D line is concerned, it is obvious to us that, because of the huge quantity of clinical trials that there is on the program, the base of development of the expenses during the last quarter of ’05 will be more a reference for ’06 than the entire year rate plus two that we saw.

Now, you asked the other question on the general guidance about Ambien. Again, be sure that I’m not going to give any kind of detail of the kind of hypothesis we made. Let’s just say that, on the general guidance -- as a general guidance for the Company, we said that we would make plus 10% on an EPS basis and now we’re not going to give all the underlying items which are included in our assumptions.

Could you perhaps give us a feel, though, for the mechanics on pediatric exclusivity then? So do you have to have completed your studies and submitted them to FDA to get the exclusivity extension?

For the written request, as you know, we received this written request for pediatric indication by the FDA. We already started both studies, the technical one and the clinical one, and, as soon as we’ll finish that we’ll go and discuss with the FDA in order to see whether they will be happy or not. And you know that this means that we’ll have six more months’ protection for Ambien itself.

And you’re comfortable that you would have the, I think they’re eight week studies, that they would be complete in time to do that ahead of the patent expiration?

We believe that we’ll be able to perform this clinical trial before summer.

Great, thank you.

And from Citigroup, we move on to [Ahmed Roy]. Please go ahead sir.

Hello, yes thank you. Just a couple of questions on SR14778. Firstly, do you think the lack of the peripheral effect of 778 is down to some sort of difference that we’ve not characterized about the CB1 receptor, compared to other CB1 receptors in the brain?

And following on from that, how do you reconcile the GI side effects that you are getting with 778, but without the peripheral side effects -- peripheral beneficial effects I should say of 778?

And a third question just about the Stradivarius and Auditor trials. I see there to be a little bit of a difference in the dates. On your slide you suggest the Stradivarius and Auditor trials reporting data in 2010. On the clinical trials I’ve got it’s more like 2008. I just want to make sure I understand what the correct date is. Thank you.

Concerning the SR compound, the CB1 receptor antagonist, you know we don’t have the total explanation but keep in mind that we already demonstrated in humans and it was demonstrated in animals by people from NIH and by us in the liver and by us in the adipose tissue that, in fact, CB1 receptors are quite important for the excretion of [adipocants] in one case and for lipogenesis in the other. Meaning that, concerning Rimonabant, maybe or let’s say, 50% of the effect, or quite a lot of the effect of Rimonabant might be linked to a peripheral effect.

In animals this back-up compound seems to be very efficient in all the, let’s say, CNS effects linked to a blockade of CB1. Until now there is no difference between the peripheral and central CB1 receptors. But it remains bottom line that sometimes compounds are more efficient across more [BBB] or are more efficient in the adipose tissue than the other. And again, it was exactly what we got, that’s why we don’t have possibly the right explanation but, apparently, this compound seems to be less peripheral than Rimonabant itself.

The difference in date concerning the presentation of Pierre Chancel and what -- where is that? It corresponds to the launch of the clinical indication. When we mentioned, for instance, that we do hope to get the results of Serenade by the end of this year, beginning of next year, that means that possibly for the patients it will be useful roughly one year after. So the difference is there. But we have no change in the clinical trial. Roughly all the lifecycle management with Rimonabant, all the clinical trials already started.

Thank you.

And from ABN Amro, we have Michael Leacock. Please go ahead sir.

Hi, I have a few questions if I may. Firstly, could you just talk a little bit more about Xaliproden, particularly in the neuro-protectant indication, and is the Xenox II study identical in protocol to the Xenox I?

Could I ask about teriflunamide and the timing there? It seems to be taking quite some time in Phase III. Could you talk through any issues there might be with your oral MS drug?

And finally, and again, as Acomplia is such an important drug, I will at least ask the question which is, you now say a planned schedule launch of H2 ’06. Could you give some sort of idea of the level of confidence you have in that timing, and whether you’ll you be shipping into 2007?

Concerning Xaliproden, the protocol of Xenox II is quite similar to Xenox I, meaning that the dose is 1mg and that we have a look on the neuro-protected activity of this compound versus peripheral neuropathy induced by oxaliplatin. And, for sure, we’ll look up the possible, which was the case in Xenox I, lack of effect of Xaliproden on the efficacy of oxaliplatin, so quite similar.

Concerning teriflunamide, this compound, I agree with you, is in Phase III for a long time. The difficulty is that we use -- the clinical trial already started was in monotherapthy versus placebo, which is not easy for to find a new patient for such a clinical trial. That’s the main reason of this delay.

Well, I understand that your question on the filing concerns Rimonabant again. So you see, we always report to our best knowledge, to our best belief. You have understood that we have a next session now in March with the agency. In knowing what is in the two letters, we conclude from our today point of view, that a launch in the second half of 2007 is the best possible opportunity which presents -- excuse me, 2006, yes, in the second half of 2006, is the most probable launch period we can estimate as from today. And I think even Gerard cannot say more than this.

Thank you very much gentlemen.

We’ll move on to John Murphy with Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead sir.

Yes, good afternoon. I’ve got three questions please. Firstly, on Lovenox, can you give us any update there, in particular with relation to the citizens’ petition? Have you had any response from FDA?

Second, and apologies for this. I know it was asked earlier on in the French session, but the translation wasn’t clear. Can you clarify on idraparinux what your strategy is now? Are you just going to go with the biotin coupled product?

And then finally, you proposed a very strong increase in dividend for this year. I just wondered if you could make any comment on dividend outlook, at least in terms of strategy. Is it to grow it in line with earnings? Do you have a certain payout ratio targeted, for example?

So, I start first with the citizens’ petition. There is nothing new. The FDA has confirmed when the petition had been filed. Since, there is no other reaction to our knowledge from the FDA.

As far as the dividend is concerned, you are right. It’s fair to say that the increase in the dividend for this year will follow the increase in the EPS we just recorded. Now we’re talking about a 27% increase which is not nothing, even though the yield is only 2%. Now it’s not impossible that, in the future, there would be a slight increase in the payout ratio, but now we’re still having €10b of indebtedness at the end of this year, so we figured out that it was a good policy, a good balance for 2006, to follow up again to do a little more than the increase in the EPS. We’ll see that if we can increase a bit that dividend policy.

So, concerning the strategy of the launching between idraparinux and biotinylated idraparinux, frankly speaking, it’s a little bit too early to say anything. Don’t forget that we’ll start the Phase III study with the biotinylated idraparinux second quarter this year, although in the Phase III program, the Vanguard program of idraparinux is much more advanced. So we’ll see in the near future. Right now we have in mind to launch both compounds but, again, we’ll see as a function of time if we change our mind.

Thanks very much indeed.

And now we move on to Alex Evans with Deutsche Bank.

Thanks for taking my call. I just -- most of my questions have been already asked and answered and I just have one remaining question relating to dronedarone. If FDA wants additional safety studies from the Athena study, I was just wondering when you could have that data ready, or whether you could have an interim look at the data or when you expect the fuller results from the Athena study to report?

Concerning Athena, as you saw, 40% of the patients are recruited. Again, when you have only 40% it’s difficult to speculate, but we believe that we’ll finish, for sure, the recruitment of the patients, let’s say, by far before the end of this year. And don’t forget that, and too early to say, that we have an interim analysis with this compound that was accepted by the FDA and if the FDA ask for this data, again one more time we’ll discuss with them. Until now we have no feedback with the FDA concerning dronedarone, so we don’t know whether or not we’ll need Athena or interim analysis of Athena.

Sorry, when did you say the interim analysis would be available?

The interim analysis will occur before the end of this year.

Okay thank you.

And the full results one year after.

Thanks very much.

And now we move on to Andrew Oh with Leerink Swann & Company. Please go ahead sir.

Yes, thanks for taking my question. I was just wondering, are there any plans to conduct registrational trials in the Type II second line setting with Rimonabant?

Could you please repeat the question?

Yes. Are there any plans to conduct registrational trials in the Type II second line or refractory settings? You have studies in the pre-diabetes and Type II naive setting, so I was curious if there are any plans to conduct trials in the second line setting? And if not, why not?

No, as you know, we have already started a first line study and I can say, more or less and really repeat finally what the second line study -- RIO diabetes sorry, RIO diabetes was roughly a second line study [causing to] on top of a roll anti-diabetic agent.

And so why aren’t you conducting a second line or second study to try and get that indication?

Yes, we do another study in order to get first line clinical indication, and also to have the association with insulin. It’s already mentioned by Pierre during his presentation.

Okay, thank you.

And now we move on to Alexandra Hauber with Bear Stearns. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Thank you for taking my question. Sorry, I have a follow-up question on the, actually, follow-up compound to Acomplia. When you mentioned that in the qualitative difference that we don’t see the peripheral effects, could you be a bit more specific? I mean, do you not see any HCL increase and no glucose or [ID] increase at all, given that what we’ve seen with Acomplia wasn’t huge effects and the [inaudible] in HGA1C in that small study? Have you actually had some diabetic patients in there? I’m just wondering whether it’s really, based on that small study, whether you really can make a final conclusion on the extent of the peripheral effect?

And the second question is regarding to your overview on the line extensions, that was page 102. I was just wondering what is making the cut to get on to that table and what isn’t? Because, for example, we do not find a Plavix primary prevention indication filed there, but you do have filings in there for which we haven’t seen data either, such as Eloxatin in pancreatic cancer?

No, for instance, for the line extension when you mention primary prevention, this corresponds to prevention [inaudible] patients, it’s only wording, the difference. But maybe we didn’t put all the line extensions because, frankly speaking, we have too many and that’s why we didn’t want to comment too much on that.

Again, concerning the difference between the back-up of Rimonabant and Rimonabant at the peripheral level, again, we’ll see with other CB1 receptor antagonists what will happen. But again, I repeat that, in animals, Rimonabant seems to be more potent than the back-up at the peripheral level, and that the reverse is true for the central effect.

And apparently, in one study, but it’s still a Phase IIb study, we got roughly similar effects on weight loss and on weight concerns versus placebo which was close to the one of Rimonabant. But again, less effect on the cardiometabolic risk factor, that’s a fact. The exact explanation is possibly difficult to have right now but, again, that’s why we believe since 50% of the effect of Rimonabant is in [dependence] of the decrease in body weight, it’s really a strong difference between both compounds, in humans, in obese patients.

Just one last question.

From Wall Street Journal, we have [Shaun Ballane]. Please go ahead.

Yes thank you. I wonder, you mentioned that in the non-approvable letter for Rimonabant for smoking cessation that the FDA asked for new trials. Do you plan to carry out those trials and re-submit the drug for smoking cessation approval?

Again, one more time, I’m really sorry but we already mentioned to you, let us meet the FDA, let us work and discuss with the FDA. We don’t to comment more on Rimonabant. We mentioned to you that in the letter we were asked to perform a clinical trial in smoking cessation, and we were not asked to perform a clinical trial in obesity. We don’t want to comment more.

Okay.

Okay, so thank you very much. We have to apologize because the sound is behind us and not in front of us, so it was a little difficult for us to understand the questions but I expect that the answers were good.

So thank you very much.