Close

AbbVie increases 9.7% since earning reports: Can it persist?

Note* - All images used are for editorial and illustrative purposes only and may not originate from the original news provider or associated company.

Related stories

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

What Goes Into Synthetic Urine? The Chemistry Behind Replicating a Biological Fluid

Synthetic urine sounds simple until you look closely at...
- Advertisement -

A month has gone by since the last earnings report for AbbVie Inc. ABBV . Shares have added about 9.7% in that time frame, outperforming the market.

Will the recent positive trend continue leading up to its next earnings release, or is ABBV due for a pullback? Before we dive into how investors and analysts have reacted as of late, let’s take a quick look at the most recent earnings report in order to get a better handle on the important catalysts.

AbbVie Tops Q4 Earnings & Revenues, Ups 2018 Guidance

AbbVie reported better-than-expected results for the fourth quarter of 2017. Importantly, it raised its earnings expectations for 2018 based on continued strong operational performance and lower tax rates.

AbbVie reported fourth-quarter 2017 earnings of $1.48 per share, beating the Zacks Consensus Estimate $1.44 by 2.8% and came ahead of the guided range of $1.42 and $1.44. Earnings grew 23.3% year over year. Strong sales performance and higher operating profits led to the bottom-line beat.

Including a charge related to the recent tax law changes and other one-time/special items, earnings were 3 cents per share compared with 85 cents in the year-ago quarter.

Revenues of $7.74 billion in the reported quarter marginally beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $7.6 billion. Sales increased 13.9% year over year. Excluding a 1.5% favorable impact from foreign exchange rate fluctuations, operational revenues rose 12.6% backed by continued strong performances by Humira and Imbruvica and solid initial uptake of Mavyret. Operational revenue growth also surpassed management expectations of approximately 10% growth.

Quarter in Details
Humira recorded sales growth of 14% (12.3% on an operational basis) with revenues coming in at $4.89 billion, reflecting continued strong demand trends. Sales in the United States increased 15.1% to $3.3 billion.

Humira sales in the ex-U.S. market were up 6.5% on operational basis and 11.7% on a reported basis to $1.58 billion.

In 2018, Humira sales growth in the United States is expected to be approximately 13% to 14% while internationally, Humira sales are expected to peak at approximately $6.2 billion.

Fourth-quarter net revenues from Imbruvica were $708 million, up 38.7% year over year.  This included Imbruvica U.S. sales of $585 million, up 35.3% and $123 million (up 57.8%) of international profit sharing. Continued uptake in the front-line CLL market and steady gains across other indications led to the strong performance of Imbruvica.

In 2017, AbbVie met its expectations of recording Imbruvica global revenues of more than $2.4 billion with sales in the United States crossing $2 billion. In 2018, Imbruvica global revenues are expected to exceed $3.3 billion with sales in the United States likely to cross $2.7 billion.

Other products that performed well include Lupron (224 million, up 1.8% year over year) Duodopa ($100 million, up 21.3% year over year) and Creon ($235 million, up 10.6%).

Despite competitive dynamics in the HCV market, AbbVie HCV sales, including Viekira and Mavyret, were $510 million in the quarter, up 62.7% on an operational basis. Strong uptake of Mavyret in the United States and international markets led to the increase.

On the call, management mentioned that Mavyret has witnessed strong uptake both in the United States and internationally.

In 2018, global HCV sales are expected to exceed $2.5 billion with a roughly equal split between U.S. and outside U.S.  markets.

Adjusted SG&A expenses inched up 0.9% to $1.64 billion. However, as a percentage of sales, SG&A expenses declined 270 bps to 21.2% driven by sales leverage and operational efficiencies. R&D expenses escalated 12.5% to $1.32 billion in the quarter due to greater investments in the pipeline. Adjusted operating margin was 40.7% of sales in the reported quarter, up 90 bps year over year.

2017 Results
Full-year sales jumped 10.1% year over year on an operational basis to $28.2 billion. Sales outpaced the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $28 billion. Revenue growth was in line with expectations of 10% growth on an operational basis.

Adjusted earnings of $5.60 per share for the full year exceeded the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $5.56 as well as the guided range of $5.53-$5.55. Earnings rose 16.2% year over year.

2018 Outlook
AbbVie raised its adjusted EPS guidance to a range of $7.33-$7.43 for 2018 from $6.37-$6.57 predicted earlier. Consistently strong organic growth coupled with tax rate reductions as result of the recent U.S. tax reforms propelled the increase in earnings guidance. The guidance reflects a year-over-year increase of 32% at the mid-point.

Revenues are expected to approach $32 billion, reflecting year-over-year growth of approximately 13%. Currency impact is expected to benefit revenues by 1.5% in 2018.

While R&D expense is expected to be roughly 16% of sales, SG&A is expected to be just over 20% of sales. Operating margin is expected to be approximately 44%, roughly 150 basis points above 2017 levels. Adjusted tax rate is expected to be approximately 9% in 2018. The normalized tax rate expectation over next five years is 13%.

On the call, the company said that it plans to invest approximately $2.5 billion in capital projects in the United States over the next five years on increased access to foreign cash following the U.S. tax reforms. In addition, the company will accelerate its pension funding by $750 million and also plans to contribute $350 million to select not-for-profit organizations.

First-Quarter 2018 Outlook
First-quarter earnings are expected between $1.77 and $1.79. Revenues are estimated to grow in a mid-teen range on an operational basis. Foreign exchange is expected to have a 3% favorable impact on sales in the first quarter.

U.S. Humira sales are expected to grow in a low-teens range year over year. Internationally, operational sales growth is expected in the mid single-digits range. Imbruvica U.S. sales are expected to grow in the mid single-digits range sequentially over the fourth quarter.

How Have Estimates Been Moving Since Then?
In the past month, investors have witnessed an upward trend in fresh estimates. There have been three revisions higher for the current quarter. In the past month, the consensus estimate has shifted by 19% due to these changes.
AbbVie Inc. Price and Consensus
 
AbbVie Inc. Price and Consensus
At this time, ABBV has an average Growth Score of C, while it is doing a lot better on the momentum front with A. The stock was allocated a grade of C on the value side, putting it in the middle 20% for this investment strategy.

Overall, the stock has an aggregate VGM Score of B. If you aren’t focused on one strategy, this score is the one you should be interested in.
Based on our scores, the stock is more suitable for growth than value and momentum investors.

Never miss a pharmaceutical headline

The pharmaceutical industry moves fast – stay on top of it with our must - read briefings.

  • The top pharma and life sciences stories, straight to your inbox
  • The biggest news, features, interviews, and analysis
  • Dedicated coverage of the key developments driving the global pharmaceutical sector

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access the Media Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Latest stories

Related stories

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

What Goes Into Synthetic Urine? The Chemistry Behind Replicating a Biological Fluid

Synthetic urine sounds simple until you look closely at...

Danaher Prepares to Introduce Advanced AI-Powered Laboratory

In a significant step for pharmaceutical research, Danaher has...

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access theMedia Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Translate »