Category: 3. Business

One aspect of the “affordability” crisis facing many Americans is the rising cost of electricity. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, electric rates measured by average retail revenues per kilowatt went up 7.1% in 2025 and are expected to continue rising in 2026. There is considerable variation across the country, though, as last year’s rates went up 26.3% in DC, 18.9% in Pennsylvania, and 16.3% in Rhode Island, with smaller increases in southern and western states.

Many factors contribute to high electricity costs, including rising energy prices, infrastructure improvements, extreme weather, environmental mandates, and the energy-intensive development of data centers. Experts disagree on how to rank these variables; while some attribute greater responsibility to data centers, others claim that this is not the case.

Regardless of the underlying causes, the public remains deeply concerned about high electricity rates and views these increases as a major concern. A 2026 Politico national survey found that nearly half of Americans expect data center energy costs to be a campaign issue. A 2026 Pew Research Center poll, meanwhile, found that 38% of respondents claimed the overall data center impact on home energy costs was mostly bad, 10% felt it was neither good nor bad, 6% believed it was mostly good, and 21% were not sure.

There were party differences in these assessments, with 44% of Democrats and 33% of Republicans believing data centers were “mostly bad” for home energy expenses. In general, Republicans had more favorable views about data centers and saw them as valuable economic development vehicles and less damaging to the environment than Democrats did.

To deal with electric rate increases, a wide range of remedies is being debated. One of the more draconian stances is a moratorium on data center construction. In the New York legislature, there is a bill that would prohibit new data center construction for three years while leaders assess the risks. At the federal level, some members have suggested a “temporary pause” on data centers while their fiscal, energy, and environmental ramifications are evaluated.

Others are pushing data center developers to pay all the energy costs associated with data center construction and operations. For example, President Trump’s Ratepayer Protection Pledge asks companies to fully cover the energy costs associated with their data centers, and a number of large tech firms publicly agreed to take that pledge.

Some states are adopting “large load” tariffs that charge heavy energy users higher electric rates than residential consumers. Because facilities such as data centers and manufacturing plants require immense amounts of energy, regulators increasingly expect them to cover the specific infrastructure costs they trigger. State public utility commissions possess the formal authority to enact these higher rates.

Yet most candidates are focusing less on policy remedies than on lumping electricity increases with housing, food, and gasoline costs, labeling these distinct problems as a generalized “affordability” crisis. The difficulty with grouping so many issues, however, is that it becomes harder to educate the public about the particular steps needed to address various contributing forces. Because there are alternative ways to deal with housing, energy, and data center costs, candidates should explain their plans for each area.

In 2025, Democratic candidates gained considerable traction by expressing concern over high electricity rates and blaming data centers for the increases. Analysts in Virginia and New Jersey attributed Democratic victories to the tough stance gubernatorial candidates took against those facilities. Conservatives have joined the critique as well; Florida Governor Ron DeSantis supported an AI bill of rights to protect consumers from AI risks and shield them from the electricity costs of data centers.

We are already seeing 2026 candidates from both parties rail against rising rates, fixing responsibility on wealthy tech companies and the energy needs of their data centers. Electoral aspirants are leveraging public fears over artificial intelligence and a “techlash” against large digital firms to appeal to voters and propose tough legislation. The Virginia Senate, for instance, recently passed a budget bill that would remove a $1.6 billion tax break for data center equipment—just one sign of the shifting political climate for developers. Public concern over electricity costs will likely dominate this year’s campaign dialogue and could determine which candidates find success at the polls.

Donald Trump has branded the UK and other Nato allies “cowards” but anger is growing among cabinet ministers that his war in Iran could jeopardise Britain’s fragile finances.

Senior members of the government are in despair about the potential effects on the economy, with experts warning of higher energy prices and increased mortgage and borrowing costs.

They have already begun contingency planning in case the conflict is protracted, including considering lowering speed limits to minimise fuel consumption.

With the conflict continuing to escalate, the UK confirmed it was authorising the use of British military bases to strike Iranian missile launchers that are targeting commercial ships in the strait of Hormuz. Previously, UK bases were only being used to strike Iranian sites targeting British allies and interests in Gulf states.

Trump said on Friday night the move came “very late”, adding: “They should have acted faster.” Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said on social media that Keir Starmer was “putting British lives at risk by allowing UK bases to be used for aggression against Iran”.

The change is unlikely to make a significant difference to the conflict, leaving ministers scrambling to map out worst-case scenarios for the economy.

The Treasury has set up an “Iran board” of ministers and officials that is considering a range of potential options, which government sources say include a universal bailout for energy bills. This would be a “last resort” if global prices remained high.

There is anger among some ministers towards the US president, who posted on Truth Social on Friday that Nato allies were “cowards” for refusing his calls to help reopen the strait of Hormuz, claiming it would be “so easy for them to do, with so little risk”. No 10 declined to comment on the insult.

But on Friday night, Trump said the US was considering “winding down” military operations in Iran. Posting on his Truth Social platform, he wrote: “We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East with respect to the Terrorist Regime of Iran.

“The Hormuz Strait will have to be guarded and policed, as necessary, by other Nations who use it – The United States does not!”

The prospect of a global energy shock and further increases to the cost of living comes at a critical time for Starmer and Rachel Reeves in the run-up to May’s local elections, when the government had hoped to emphasise the improving economy.

Reeves, the chancellor, is facing pressure on multiple fronts after the cost of government borrowing rose to its highest level since the 2008 financial crisis on Friday, and analysts said the markets were predicting interest rates of 4.5%, which would raise the cost of mortgages.

In the face of oil supply shortages caused by the closure of the strait of Hormuz, the International Energy Agency (IEA) suggested the world should use ovens less and cut back on car usage to increase resilience.

Forecasts suggested household energy bills could increase by £330 a year to almost £2,000 from this summer after the war pushed the UK’s gas market past three-year highs, according to Cornwall Insight.

With the UK’s economic reset under threat, Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, raised the idea of loosening the fiscal rules that restrict borrowing earlier this week, while others on the Labour backbenches were also pushing for a change in direction and radical tax reform.

Downing Street sources said the economic situation was “extremely challenging” but they hoped Starmer would get the credit for resisting Trump’s war on Iran and focusing on the cost of living, and that people would see it was an international crisis.

One said: “It is frustrating, but it does show we were right to go into the year with a cost of living focus. It is so annoying when inflation was coming down and energy bills were falling by £117, we would all rather it hadn’t have happened. But if we hadn’t done that, we would be in a much worse position now.”

Multiple Whitehall officials said it would be clearer within about two weeks whether the war had de-escalated enough to avoid having to offer households support with their energy bills – whether that be a package targeted at the vulnerable or a more universal version, similar to the bailout due to the Ukraine war under the Conservatives on a lesser scale.

No 10 and the Treasury strongly favour the idea of support targeted only at those who need it most, but political sources acknowledged it could be difficult to restrict financial help because of resentment in other groups and past controversy over the withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance.

Paul Nowak, the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, said: “Working people must not be left to pay the price for Trumpflation. The government has taken the right first steps to support those hardest hit by rising energy bills. But ministers should be ready to go further to protect households and businesses from the fallout.”

The Greens have called for the government to cover a £300 increase in energy bills as a result of the war, costing about £8bn.

It is understood that all options for energy support are still on the table, depending on whether the war continues and how it affects the markets. The time of year gives the government more time to consider whether a package of support is needed, as households tend to use less gas over the summer.

One senior Labour source said there was a concern within Downing Street about the cost of repeated bailouts and that “no one wants to be coming back for more tax rises in two years’ time”.

Fatih Birol, the director of the IEA, told media outlets on Friday that it was the “the greatest global energy security threat in history”.

The IEA advised countries to promote public transport, give private cars access to city centres on alternate days, encourage efficient driving habits, avoid air travel where possible and switch to electric cooking.

The prime minister’s official spokesperson said this was the IEA’s “general advice for countries across the world” and people in the UK “should continue to go about their days in normal fashion”.

Contingency plans to minimise fuel consumption are being worked up by the government, with lower speed limits a potential consideration, as the crisis in the Middle East threatens global oil supplies.

Sources stressed that there was no shortage of fuel in the UK, but said officials in the Department for Transport were working with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on an analysis of what measures could be taken to curb oil demand.

One cabinet source said there was “deep gloom” in the Treasury and No 10 that there were green shoots emerging at the start of the year but Trump’s decision to bomb Iran had knocked the recovery off course.

Reeves is understood to be frustrated at the likely reduction in her carefully planned economic headroom, which could be brought down by £7bn-£8bn.

As recently as February, the chancellor said she was “beginning to see the economy turning a corner” and suggested “this will be the year that people start to feel the change in their pockets”.

But with fuel prices and mortgage rates already rising, and worse potentially to come, a government minister conceded: “It’s jam postponed, once again.”

Story Continues

A close call between a commercial airliner and a cargo plane attempting to land on crossing runways at New Jersey’s Newark Liberty international airport is being investigated by federal aviation officials.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) on Thursday said it was investigating an incident two days earlier during which an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 overflew a FedEx Boeing 777 at the busy New York City area airport.

An air traffic controller instructed Alaska Airlines Flight 294 from Portland, Oregon, to perform a go around – that is, discontinue its landing approach and circle around for a new approach to land – because FedEx Flight 721 from Memphis, Tennessee, was cleared for a final approach to an intersecting runway, according to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which also is investigating the Tuesday night episode.

Alaska Airlines said in a prepared statement that the flight was cleared to land at Newark and that air traffic control “issued a go around to our aircraft, which our pilots are highly trained for”. There were 171 passengers and six crew members on board the flight, according to the airline.

FedEx said in a prepared statement that its flight crew followed instructions from air traffic control and landed safely.

While the S&P 500 has traded within a relatively narrow range this year, there are significant signals of stress below the surface, says John Storey, Co-Head of Equities Distribution in Goldman Sachs Global Banking & Markets. He discusses investor positioning, and the potential for “asset-heavy” companies to outperform, in this conversation with Chris Hussey.

Subscribe: Spotify, Apple, YouTube.

Recorded on March 18, 2026.

The opinions and views expressed herein are as of the date of publication, subject to change without notice, and may not necessarily reflect the institutional views of Goldman Sachs or its affiliates. The material provided is intended for informational purposes only, and does not constitute investment advice, a recommendation from any Goldman Sachs entity to take any particular action, or an offer or solicitation to purchase or sell any securities or financial products. This material may contain forward-looking statements. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Neither Goldman Sachs nor any of its affiliates make any representations or warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of the statements or information contained herein and disclaim any liability whatsoever for reliance on such information for any purpose. Each name of a third-party organization mentioned is the property of the company to which it relates, is used here strictly for informational and identification purposes only and is not used to imply any ownership or license rights between any such company and Goldman Sachs.

A transcript is provided for convenience and may differ from the original video or audio content. Goldman Sachs is not responsible for any errors in the transcript. This material should not be copied, distributed, published, or reproduced in whole or in part or disclosed by any recipient to any other person without the express written consent of Goldman Sachs.

Disclosures applicable to research with respect to issuers, if any, mentioned herein are available through your Goldman Sachs representative or at http://www.gs.com/research/hedge.html

Goldman Sachs does not endorse any candidate or any political party.

Kalshi has been temporarily banned in Nevada, marking the latest escalation in the widening regulatory war over prediction markets. The First Judicial District Court of Nevada has issued a 14 day restraining order, effective immediately, barring the company from “offering a derivatives exchange and prediction market which offers event-based contracts relating to sports, election, and entertainment related events” without first obtaining gaming licenses.

This is the first time a US state has forced the company to cease operations. Kalshi declined to comment.

This particular legal battle began just over a year ago, when Nevada regulators sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist letter demanding that it stop offering sports-related events contracts. That initiated a messy tug-of-war between plaintiffs and defendants as the case moved between state and federal court. Until now, Kalshi could keep operating in the state as its lawyers sparred with authorities in what the company has described as a “jurisdictional quagmire.”

After the 14 days, the court will then assess whether to extend the ban for the duration of the court case. “The expectation here is that the judge will convert the 14 day TRO to a case-long preliminary injunction,” says gaming lawyer Daniel Wallach.

The ruling comes after a particularly turbulent few weeks for Kalshi. On Tuesday, the Arizona attorney general brought criminal charges against the company, accusing it of running an illegal gambling operation. Just days earlier, Kalshi filed a lawsuit against Arizona state regulators pre-emptively challenging any effort to make it follow state gambling laws.

Dozens of similar legal battles are underway across the country over whether prediction markets should be forced to abide by state gambling laws, including in Ohio, Tennessee, and Massachusetts.

A number of prominent prediction market platforms, including Kalshi, offer sports-related contracts to people over 18 across the United States, even where state gambling laws prohibit sports betting. The result is that a 19-year-old in Utah can put money on the outcome of a soccer game through prediction markets, but not through sports betting, since the state outlaws it altogether. It also means that a 19-year-old in Indiana can make a similar prediction market wager, even though state gambling law prohibits people under 21 from placing bets. This has made a growing group of bipartisan lawmakers furious.

Kalshi argues that its sports-related event contracts—where, for example, someone can wager on which teams would win the Super Bowl or a particular March Madness basketball game—are not a form of betting. Instead, the company says they should be viewed as financial instruments known as “swaps.” So far, the federal government agrees. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the US agency that oversees swaps and other derivatives markets, maintains that it has exclusive jurisdiction over prediction markets. The agency’s head, Michael Selig, has forcefully rejected claims that the industry should be subject to state gambling laws, telling critics that he will see them “in court.”

The federal government’s stance hasn’t deterred various state attorneys and gaming commissions from continuing their legal fights—and they’ve recently notched some notable victories. In January, Nevada blocked Polymarket from operating within the state; the temporary restraining order is in place through April. It was a victory for the prediction markets-are-gambling side, albeit a limited one:While Polymarket does have a modest official US presence, the bulk of its trading volume takes place on its global exchange, which is technically blocked in the US but accessible to traders willing to use virtual private networks (VPNs) to get around the ban.

Last week, a judge in Ohio rebuffed Kalshi after the prediction market company filed for a preliminary injunction to prevent state regulators from pursuing it for violating state gambling laws. In her order denying Kalshi’s motion, United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Judge Sarah D. Morrison wrote that the court had an obligation to “avoid absurdity.”

Real-World LEQEMBI Data Shows Patients Choose to Stay on Long-Term Treatment

TOKYO and CAMBRIDGE, Mass., March 20, 2026 /PRNewswire/ — Eisai Co., Ltd. (Headquarters: Tokyo, CEO: Haruo Naito, “Eisai”) and Biogen Inc. (Nasdaq: BIIB, Corporate headquarters: Cambridge, Massachusetts, CEO: Christopher A. Viehbacher, “Biogen”) announced today that new real‑world findings from an analysis of long‑term treatment persistence and baseline characteristics among people receiving intravenous (IV) lecanemab (generic name, brand name LEQEMBI^®), an anti‑amyloid‑β (Aβ) protofibril antibody, showed that most patients continue with ongoing lecanemab therapy after the initial 18 months of treatment. The analysis was presented at the 20th International Conference on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Diseases and Related Neurological Disorders (AD/PD™ 2026) in Copenhagen, Denmark, and online.

In real‑world clinical practice, patients with chronic diseases who stay on their treatments longer tend to experience better clinical outcomes and higher satisfaction.^1,2 Ninety-four percent of patients who completed 18 months of lecanemab treatment in the Phase III Clarity AD study chose to continue maintenance treatment by enrolling in the subsequent open-label, long-term extension (OLE) study. In the OLE of the Clarity AD study, patients continue to benefit from four years of lecanemab treatment compared with the natural course of Alzheimer’s disease (Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative: ADNI*).

Long-Term Persistence and Patient Characteristics for Lecanemab in Real-World Use in the United States (Presentation: March 20, 17:05 CET)
This analysis is the first time real-world lecanemab data on treatment persistence beyond 18 months has been reported.

This study was a retrospective observational analysis using the PurpleLab^® CLEAR Claims database, a comprehensive dataset based on medical insurance claims across the United States and was conducted to evaluate the long-term treatment persistence of lecanemab in real-world clinical practice.

■ Patient background and dosing
The analysis population consisted of 10,763 individuals who met the requirement for continuous healthcare encounters, out of the 13,388 individuals recorded in the database who received at least one IV treatment with lecanemab between January 6, 2023 and November 30, 2025. At baseline, the mean age was 73.8 years and 56.5% were female. The most common comorbidities were dyslipidemia (42.2%) and hypertension (36.9%). The mean follow-up duration was 350.9 days. The average number of administrations was 1.7 per month, and the mean dosing interval was 16.4 days (median 14 days), which was generally consistent with the recommended every two weeks dosing.

■ Long-Term persistence results
The time-dependent proportion of patients who remained on lecanemab treatment was evaluated using the Kaplan–Meier method in a subgroup of 371 patients who initiated treatment in 2023 and had 20 months of continuous follow-up, thereby enabling assessment of long-term treatment persistence beyond 18 months. As a result, 78.4% of individuals continued lecanemab treatment at 18 months, 71.7% at 20 months, and 67.3% at 24 months. Of the 78.4% of patients who remained on lecanemab at 18 months, the majority of them continued treatment during the maintenance period beyond 18 months, confirming a high rate of treatment persistence with lecanemab in real-world clinical practice. The patient characteristics and dosing patterns observed in this claims-based analysis were generally similar to those reported in the Clarity AD study. Furthermore, the relatively high treatment adherence observed among individuals suggests that potential delays due to MRI monitoring requirements, adverse events, and other factors did not substantially affect lecanemab dosing.

Eisai serves as the lead for lecanemab’s development and regulatory submissions globally with Eisai and Biogen co-commercializing and co-promoting the product and Eisai having final decision-making authority.

* ADNI is a clinical research project launched in 2005 to develop methods to predict the onset and progression of AD and to confirm the effectiveness of treatments. The project involves a multi-year longitudinal observation targeting healthy elderly individuals as well as patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early stages of AD.

[Notes to Editors]

1. About lecanemab (generic name, brand name: LEQEMBI)
   Lecanemab is the result of a strategic research alliance between Eisai and BioArctic. It is a humanized immunoglobulin gamma (IgG1) monoclonal antibody directed against aggregated soluble (protofibril) and insoluble forms of amyloid-beta (Aβ).

   Lecanemab has been approved in 53 countries and regions including Japan, the United States, China, Europe, South Korea, Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia, and is under regulatory review in 6 countries. Following the initial phase with treatment every two weeks for 18 months, intravenous (IV) maintenance dosing with treatment every four weeks was approved in 7 countries including the U.S., China, the UK, and others, and applications have been filed in 10 countries and regions. The U.S. FDA approved Eisai’s Biologics License Application (BLA) for subcutaneous maintenance dosing with LEQEMBI IQLIK in August 2025. A Supplemental Biologics License Application (sBLA) for initiation treatment was accepted in January 2026. The sBLA has been granted Priority Review, with a Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) action date of May 24, 2026. In November 2025, an application for a subcutaneous injectable formulation in Japan was submitted. In January 2026, the Biologics License Application (BLA) for the subcutaneous formulation was accepted in China. In December 2025, Lecanemab (IV) has been included in the “Commercial Insurance Innovative Drug List”, recently introduced by the National Healthcare Security Administration (NHSA) of China.

   In the global Phase 3 placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized Clarity AD core study, the mean change from baseline between the lecanemab treated group and the placebo group after 18 months was -0.45 (P=0.00005) on the primary endpoint of CDR-SB global cognitive and functional scale. To provide context, a change from 0.5 to 1 on the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) score domains of Memory, Community Affairs and Home/Hobbies reflects a shift from mild impairment to loss of independence. This can affect a person’s ability to be left alone safely, recall recent events, participate in daily activities, manage household tasks, and engage in hobbies and intellectual interests.^3,4

   Over three years of treatment, including both the core study and the OLE, data showed lecanemab demonstrated a reduction in cognitive decline—measured by CDR-SB—of 1.01 points compared to the expected decline observed in the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) cohort. This benefit grew more pronounced after four years, with a reduction of 1.75 points. Similarly, when benchmarked against the expected decline in the BioFINDER** cohort, lecanemab showed a reduction of 1.40 points at three years and an even greater reduction of 2.17 points at the four years mark.

   Since July 2020 the Phase 3 clinical study (AHEAD 3-45) for individuals with preclinical AD, meaning they are clinically normal and have intermediate or elevated levels of amyloid in their brains, is ongoing. AHEAD 3-45 is conducted as a public-private partnership between the Alzheimer’s Clinical Trial Consortium that provides the infrastructure for academic clinical trials in AD and related dementias in the U.S, funded by the National Institute on Aging, part of the National Institutes of Health, Eisai and Biogen. Since January 2022, the Tau NexGen clinical study for Dominantly Inherited AD (DIAD), that is conducted by Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Trials Unit (DIAN-TU), led by Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, is ongoing and includes lecanemab as the backbone anti-amyloid therapy.

   ** BioFINDER subjects are similar to Study 301 and ADNI subjects, except all BioFINDER subjects are in the MCI stage and no mild AD subjects are included, and their baseline CDR-SB is lower. BioFINDER is a large-scale, long-term prospective study led by Lund University in Sweden, aiming to establish early. diagnosis and elucidate pathophysiology of neurodegenerative diseases. In addition to AD, the study also focuses on conditions including Parkinson’s Disease. Individuals participating in the study undergo regular clinical assessments, cognitive function tests, brain imaging (MRI, Aβ PET, Tau PET), and collection of biomarkers from blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).

2. About Protofibrils
   Protofibrils are believed to contribute to the brain injury that occurs with AD and are considered to be the most toxic form of soluble Aβ, having a primary role in the cognitive decline associated with this progressive, debilitating condition.⁵ Protofibrils cause injury to neurons in the brain, which in turn, can negatively impact cognitive function via multiple mechanisms, not only increasing the development of insoluble Aβ plaques but also increasing direct damage to brain cell membranes and the connections that transmit signals between nerve cells or nerve cells and other cells. It is believed the reduction of protofibrils may prevent the progression of AD by reducing damage to neurons in the brain and cognitive dysfunction.⁶
3. About the Collaboration between Eisai and Biogen for AD
   Eisai and Biogen have been collaborating on the joint development and commercialization of AD treatments since 2014. Eisai serves as the lead of lecanemab development and regulatory submissions globally with both companies co-commercializing and co-promoting the product and Eisai having final decision-making authority.
4. About the Collaboration between Eisai and BioArctic for AD
   Since 2005, Eisai and BioArctic have had a long-term collaboration regarding the development and commercialization of AD treatments. Eisai obtained the global rights to study, develop, manufacture and market lecanemab for the treatment of AD pursuant to an agreement with BioArctic in December 2007. The development and commercialization agreement on the antibody lecanemab back-up was signed in May 2015.
5. About Eisai Co., Ltd.
   Eisai’s Corporate Concept is “to give first thought to patients and people in the daily living domain, and to increase the benefits that health care provides.” Under this Concept (also known as human health care (hhc) Concept), we aim to effectively achieve social good in the form of relieving anxiety over health and reducing health disparities. With a global network of R&D facilities, manufacturing sites and marketing subsidiaries, we strive to create and deliver innovative products to target diseases with high unmet medical needs, with a particular focus in our strategic areas of Neurology and Oncology.

   In addition, we demonstrate our commitment to the elimination of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), which is a target (3.3) of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), by working on various activities together with global partners.

   For more information about Eisai, please visit www.eisai.com (for global headquarters: Eisai Co., Ltd.), and connect with us on X, LinkedIn and Facebook. The website and social media channels are intended for audiences outside of the UK and Europe. For audiences based in the UK and Europe, please visit www.eisai.eu and Eisai EMEA LinkedIn.

6. About Biogen
   Founded in 1978, Biogen is a leading biotechnology company that pioneers innovative science to deliver new medicines to transform patient’s lives and to create value for shareholders and our communities. We apply deep understanding of human biology and leverage different modalities to advance first-in-class treatments or therapies that deliver superior outcomes. Our approach is to take bold risks, balanced with return on investment to deliver long-term growth.

   The company routinely posts information that may be important to investors on its website at www.biogen.com. Follow Biogen on social media – Facebook, LinkedIn, X, YouTube.

Biogen Safe Harbor
This news release contains forward-looking statements, including about the potential clinical effects of lecanemab (marketed as LEQEMBI); the potential benefits, safety and efficacy of lecanemab; potential regulatory discussions, submissions and approvals and the timing thereof including for LEQEMBI (lecanemab) subcutaneous autoinjector (SC-AI); the potential to expand options and reduce healthcare resources by treating Alzheimer’s disease at home; the anticipated benefits and potential of Biogen’s collaboration arrangements with Eisai; the potential of Biogen’s commercial business and pipeline programs, including lecanemab; and risks and uncertainties associated with drug development and commercialization. These forward-looking statements may be accompanied by such words as “aim,” “anticipate,” “assume,” “believe,” “contemplate,” “continue,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “forecast,” “goal,” “guidance,” “hope,” “intend,” “may,” “objective,” “outlook,” “plan,” “possible,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “prospect,” “should,” “target,” “will,” “would” or the negative of these words or other words and terms of similar meaning. Drug development and commercialization involve a high degree of risk, and only a small number of research and development programs result in commercialization of a product. Results in early-stage clinical trials may not be indicative of full results or results from later stage or larger scale clinical trials and do not ensure regulatory approval. You should not place undue reliance on these statements. Given their forward-looking nature, these statements involve substantial risks and uncertainties that may be based on inaccurate assumptions and could cause actual results to differ materially from those reflected in such statements.

These forward-looking statements are based on management’s current beliefs and assumptions and on information currently available to management. Given their nature, we cannot assure that any outcome expressed in these forward-looking statements will be realized in whole or in part. We caution that these statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, many of which are outside of our control and could cause future events or results to differ materially from those stated or implied in this document, including, among others, uncertainty of our long-term success in developing, licensing, or acquiring other product candidates or additional indications for existing products; expectations, plans, prospects and timing of actions relating to product approvals, approvals of additional indications for our existing products, sales, pricing, growth, reimbursement and launch of our marketed and pipeline products; the potential impact of increased product competition in the biopharmaceutical and healthcare industry, as well as any other markets in which we compete, including increased competition from new originator therapies, generics, prodrugs and biosimilars of existing products and products approved under abbreviated regulatory pathways; our ability to effectively implement our corporate strategy; difficulties in obtaining and maintaining adequate coverage, pricing, and reimbursement for our products; the drivers for growing our business, including our dependence on collaborators and other third parties for the development, regulatory approval, and commercialization of products and other aspects of our business, which are outside of our full control; risks related to commercialization of biosimilars, which is subject to such risks related to our reliance on third-parties, intellectual property, competitive and market challenges and regulatory compliance; the risk that positive results in a clinical trial may not be replicated in subsequent or confirmatory trials or success in early stage clinical trials may not be predictive of results in later stage or large scale clinical trials or trials in other potential indications; risks associated with clinical trials, including our ability to adequately manage clinical activities, unexpected concerns that may arise from additional data or analysis obtained during clinical trials, regulatory authorities may require additional information or further studies, or may fail to approve or may delay approval of our drug candidates; and the occurrence of adverse safety events, restrictions on use with our products, or product liability claims; and any other risks and uncertainties that are described in other reports we have filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which are available on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.

These statements speak only as of the date of this press release and are based on information and estimates available to us at this time. Should known or unknown risks or uncertainties materialize or should underlying assumptions prove inaccurate, actual results could vary materially from past results and those anticipated, estimated or projected. Investors are cautioned not to put undue reliance on forward-looking statements. A further list and description of risks, uncertainties and other matters can be found in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025, and in our subsequent reports on Form 10-Q. Except as required by law, we do not undertake any obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements whether as a result of any new information, future events, changed circumstances or otherwise.

Digital Media Disclosure
From time to time, we have used, or expect in the future to use, our investor relations website (investors.biogen.com), the Biogen LinkedIn account (linkedin.com/company/biogen-) and the Biogen X account (https://x.com/biogen) as a means of disclosing information to the public in a broad, non-exclusionary manner, including for purposes of the SEC’s Regulation Fair Disclosure (Reg FD). Accordingly, investors should monitor our investor relations website and these social media channels in addition to our press releases, SEC filings, public conference calls and websites, as the information posted on them could be material to investors.

References

1. Guerci B et al. Lack of treatment persistence and treatment nonadherence as barriers to glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Therapy, 2019; 10(2), 437-449.
2. Menditto E et al. Persistence as a robust indicator of medication adherence-related quality and performance. International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021; 18(9), 4872.
3. Cohen S., et al. J Prev Alzheimers Dis.2022;9(3):507-522.
4. Morris JC. Neurology. 1993;43(11):2412-4.
5. Amin L, Harris DA. Aβ receptors specifically recognize molecular features displayed by fibril ends and neurotoxic oligomers. Nat Commun. 2021; 12:3451. doi:10.1038/s41467-021-23507-z.
6. Ono K, Tsuji M. Protofibrils of Amyloid-β are Important Targets of a Disease-Modifying Approach for Alzheimer’s Disease. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(3):952. doi: 10.3390/ijms21030952. PMID: 32023927; PMCID: PMC7037706.

SOURCE Eisai Inc.