Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ:AUPH) Q4 2025 Earnings Call Transcript

Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ:AUPH) Q4 2025 Earnings Call Transcript February 26, 2026

Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. beats earnings expectations. Reported EPS is $1.53, expectations were $0.21.

Operator: Good morning. Welcome to the Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 Conference Call. Please be advised that a Q&A session will follow Aurinia prepared remarks. [Operator Instructions]. I will now turn the call over to Peter Greenleaf, President and Chief Executive Officer of Aurinia. Peter, please go ahead.

Peter Greenleaf: Good morning. We want to thank you all for joining us today to discuss Aurinia’s Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025 Update. Joining me on the call today are Joe Miller, our Chief Financial Officer; and Dr. Greg Keenan, our Chief Medical Officer. On today’s call, we will report fourth quarter and full year 2025 financial results and provide an update on recent business progress. During today’s call, we may make forward-looking statements based on current expectations. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of significant risks and uncertainties, and actual results may differ materially. We are pleased to have delivered strong LUPKYNIS sales in 2025, growing at a rate of 25% year-over-year. And for 2026, we expect net product sales of $305 million to $315 million, up 12% to 16% compared to 2025. And with that introduction, I’d like to now turn the call over to Joe to review our financial results. Joe?

Joseph Miller: Thank you, Peter. Total revenue for the fourth quarter of 2025 was $77.1 million, up 29% compared to $59.9 million for the same period of 2024. Net product sales of LUPKYNIS for the fourth quarter of 2025 were $74.2 million, up 29% compared to $57.6 million in 2024. Net income for the fourth quarter of 2025 was $210.8 million, up 14,957% from $1.4 million in 2024. In the fourth quarter of 2025, the company recorded an income tax benefit of $175.1 million, primarily due to the release of its valuation allowance on deferred tax assets that the company now expects to realize. Net income before income taxes for the fourth quarter of 2025 was $35.7 million, up 2,875% from $1.2 million in 2024. Diluted earnings per share for the fourth quarter of 2025 was $1.53, up 15,200% from $0.01 in 2024.

Lastly, cash flows from operating activities for the fourth quarter of 2025 were $45.7 million, up 52% from $30.1 million in 2024. Total revenue for the year ended December 31, 2025, was $283.1 million, up 20% compared to the $235.1 million for the same period of 2024. As a reminder, the 2024 period included a milestone payment of $10 million associated with LUPKYNIS regulatory approval in Japan. Excluding the onetime milestone, total revenue increased by 26% over the same period in 2024. Net product sales of LUPKYNIS for the year ended December 31, 2025, were $271.3 million, up 25% from $216.2 million in 2024. Net income for the year ended December 31, 2025, was $287.2 million, up 4,852% from $5.8 million in 2024. For the year ended December 31, 2025, the company recorded an income tax benefit of $173 million, primarily due to the release of its valuation allowance on deferred tax assets that the company now expects to realize.

Net income before income taxes for the year ended December 31, 2025, was $114.2 million, up 1,443% from $7.4 million in 2024. Diluted earnings per share for the year ended December 31, 2025, was $2.07, up 5,075% from $0.04 in 2024. Lastly, cash flows from operating activities the year ended December 31, 2025, were $135.7 million, up 206% from $44.4 million in 2024. As of December 31, 2025, the company had cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash and investments of $398 million compared to $358.5 million at December 31, 2024. For the year ended December 31, 2025, the company repurchased 12.2 million common shares for $98.2 million and fully diluted shares outstanding were reduced from $149.8 million to $139.7 million. As a result of LUPKYNIS continued momentum, we are pleased to announce our 2026 guidance.

We expect total revenue of $315 million to $325 million, up 11% to 15% compared to 2025. We expect net product sales of $305 million to $315 million, up 12% to 16% compared to 2025. Now I would like to turn the call back over to Peter for some business updates.

Peter Greenleaf: Thanks, Joe. Turning now to aritinercept. We are very excited about the potential of this novel biologic in the treatment of a wide range of autoimmune diseases. As we’ve previously discussed, aritinercept is a dual BAFF April inhibitor that was well tolerated at all dose levels tested in the Phase I single ascending dose study. Single doses of aritinercept led to robust and long-lasting reductions in immunoglobulin supportive of once monthly dosing. Aurinia has initiated a clinical study of aritinercept in one autoimmune disease and plans to initiate a clinical study in an additional autoimmune disease in the first half of 2026. So in summary, we continue to drive growth in our commercial LUPKYNIS business, while at the same time advancing the clinical development of aritinercept. We want to thank you for joining us on today’s call and we look forward to taking your questions. Now let me ask the operator to open up the line for Q&A. Operator?

Q&A Session

Operator: [Operator Instructions]. Our first question is coming from Maurice Raycroft from Jefferies.

Farzin Haque: This is Farzin on for Maurice. So your issued guidance for 2026 seems somewhat conservative given the 4Q run rate. So what are some of the specifics in forming the commercial outlook? And as it relates to the — what you’re seeing in the first 2 months of this year?

Peter Greenleaf: Farzin, on the first part, I don’t think I got the first part of your question. Can you repeat it on what you’re looking for there? I think you want to understand what’s underlying the growth for the company for the year?

Farzin Haque: Right. Like what’s the underlying assumptions for the 2026 guidance? And then what are you seeing in the first 2 months of the year to inform that?

Peter Greenleaf: Well, I think first off, our strategy for the commercial business of LUPKYNIS continues to be similar to what we’ve done for the last probably 6 to 12 months, and that’s to continue to stand on the incredible data that we have in terms of the efficacy of the product and the treatment of lupus nephritis and the reduction of proteinuria as early as 3 and 6 months that we’ve seen leveraging the expanded data set that we had with the extension study we did with the AURORA trial, which gives longer-term data, the biopsy study. And then last year, the introduction of the ACR and ULAR guidelines that actually did a really nice job, not just promoting novel products like LUPKYNIS, but more importantly, more aggressively using diagnostics to identify proteinuria earlier in patients suffering from lupus to identify lupus nephritis.

So our strategy hinges on really trying to change the whole treatment paradigm, the diagnostic paradigm and then the early treatment aggressively of proteinuria, and we believe our drug does that better than not the drugs that have historically been used to treat the disease and what’s been seen to date with even the novel newly approved or novel drugs that have produced data. As for the question about the first 2 months of the year, we’re not really giving any steer for the quarter, but nothing is out of ordinary for what we’ve seen historically. We’ve tried to put emphasis on the best predictor for what we’re seeing going forward has been past history. So we would refer you to Q1 of 2025 to look for any friends in the business.

Farzin Haque: Got it. Makes sense. And then a follow-up is on the — you recently dominated the Phase III and the open label studies in the vocal study and the vocal extension, the pediatric study. And it mentioned like part DSMB recommendations. So can you clarify whether DSMB is asking to stop? Or is FDA refocused on the drug in any way?

Peter Greenleaf: Do you want to take that, Greg?

Greg Keenan: Yes. Thanks for the question. Greg Keenan here. So the local study in its current form was one where due to technical issues working with the clinicians that proved to be very, very difficult to recruit patients for that particular study. So we made a decision based on what we saw at that point that we terminate the study and plan to have negotiations soon with the FDA for further plans for meeting our pediatric commitments in lupus nephritis.

Peter Greenleaf: Yes. I think just one thing to add, in addition to that is, we have data from the work that we’ve done up to this point. We have in-market data that we know from treatment of patients, both on the adolescent and the pediatric side in the current market. So there’s data that we can actually provide to the agency, and we look forward to a conversation with the agency about: One meeting commitment that we had to the agency and; two, what that would mean for how physicians should be guided in the treatment of pediatric patients. Last point here, remember that this disease is primarily disease of women in the middle part of their life. It’s not really a prominent pediatric condition. So while we had the commitment with the agency, this is not — the burden of this disease in pediatric patients is quite small and the thereby the business opportunity being probably smaller than that.

Operator: Next question questions coming from Joseph Schwartz from Leerink Partners.

Will Soghikian: This is Will Soghikian on for Joseph Schwartz. Congrats on the quarter,and thanks for taking our questions. Just to start for us. I think previously you guys guided to a development update for aritinercept in early 2026. But can we still expect this update? And could you please provide some additional context for what this might entail. I understand that’s the competitive reasons, you’re keeping the indications of focus close to the vest. But what about the overall study design and the size? Just so we can have some visibility to the potential data disclosures? And is this a Phase Ib or Phase II and I have a quick follow up.

Peter Greenleaf: Well, thanks for the question. We’re — obviously from the last couple of calls, it should be obvious that we’re excited about the therapeutic potential for BAFF April inhibition across a wide range of these B cell-mediated autoimmune diseases. As we mentioned on this call, we initiated a clinical study of aritinercept in one autoimmune disease, and we plan, obviously, as we said, to initiate another on our immune disease in the first half of 2026. At that time, we’ll disclose the indications for each study in the second quarter of 2026. So look for more from us end. I can’t say whether we’re going to get into trial design, et cetera, that — up until that point, but more to come by the second quarter of 2026.

Will Soghikian: Great. That’s super helpful, Peter. And then just one on new LUPKYNIS. I guess things have been going pretty well. I think raising guidance twice last year is a great indication that there’s still some growing demand and momentum here. So I guess could you qualitatively just talk about what’s going better than expected? Are patients staying on therapy longer? Are you adding more patients on commercial drug than expected? Are you seeing a better mix of insurers? I guess, what’s the main driver of this continued strong performance as we head into 2026?

Peter Greenleaf: While we don’t give individual commercial metrics anymore, what I can tell you — thank you for the question, is we are seeing growth across patients. We are seeing very solid and continued adherence to the product and persistency, and even the mix of our business when looking at the average price per commercial patient per year all continue to perform with a level of consistency, again. Why we’ve kind of steered to — if you look at the historical growth pattern of this product over the last 3 years, it’s probably the best way to think about its growth pattern going forward. And if you do that, I think you’ll see why we landed in the guidance range that we did.

Operator: Our next question is coming from Arthur He from H.C. Wainwright.

Yu He: Congrats on the quarter. So I just — kind of follow up with the last question. So given the guidance for the 2026, I’m just curious how much the growth is coming from the rheumatologists versus nephrologist. And given we have the guidance — the new guidance in hand for a while, do you believe we have reached a steady state of the guidance-driven prescribing? Or it’s still too early like for the tails?

Peter Greenleaf: So let me break that question just in half. The first half was, are we seeing any break in terms of the trends on rheumatology prescribers as it relates to total revenue contribution versus nephrology? The answer to that is slightly. One of the things that is key to our mid- to longer-term strategy is to get earlier diagnosis and earlier treatment, which, by the way, I don’t think is unique to Aurinia. I think for the patients, for physicians and for the future of this disease, we’re strong believers that earlier treatment with drugs like LUPKYNIS are only going to have a short- and longer-term patients benefit and probably save more kidneys and more patients, extend more patients’ lives over time. So rheumatology is key to that.

Since these patients are SLE patients before they ever become diagnosed as lupus nephritis and catching them early and getting more aggressive treatment is going to — is really going to start in the rheumatologist office. What I can tell you, because we aren’t giving the specific metrics anymore, as we continue to see more prescribers in the room space. And while the business is pretty evenly broken between rheumatology and nephrology, it does favor the rheumatologists slightly, and that has been increasing over the last 2 years. The second part of your question was centered on — why am I blanking now? Can you repeat it for me?

Yu He: Yes, I said like which meaning for the — coming from the ACR guidance, post impact to the prescriber.

Peter Greenleaf: Well, I think it’s — for me, it’s — I’d ask Greg to jump in here, too, if I miss anything. The guidelines emphasize earlier diagnosis. And we know there’s a long way to go here. They recommend that every time a lupus patient comes in that they get a urinalysis and look for proteinuria as well as other indicators of the disease progression when they visit. What we do know is that doesn’t happen every time they visit. And matter of fact, it probably happens less than 50% of the time that a patient visits in office. So if we can see that increase, we believe more proteinuria will be identified when more proteinuria is identified, if — and this is the second part, it’s identified, we see aggressive treatment.

The guidelines say when you hit a certain target treatment level that the patients should then be treated. We also know from payer data and database data that’s out there that, that doesn’t happen either. So more aggressive diagnosis, more aggressive to specific target of proteinuria. Lastly, the target of keeping a patient on drug for 3 to 5 years is clearly written in the guidelines, and we know that not just for LUPKYNIS, but for all drugs included treating this more like a chronic progressive disease than an acute flare up within the disease would all be a major progression for the treatment of the disease.

Greg Keenan: Yes. No, I just — I agree with all the points. I think as clinicians become increasingly comfortable confident in the new agents to include LUPKYNIS more consistently treating for longer periods of time. And so that’s something we look forward to continuing to support in rheumatology and nephrology communities.

Yu He: Maybe just a quick one for Greg. So speaking of the aritinercept receptor. Greg, could you remind us how the ADA situation for the payer drug when you see in the health form here.

Greg Keenan: Right. So we mentioned one of the previous calls that you have seen antidrug antibodies that low titers at doses from 25 milligrams and above. At this point, as I noted previously, we didn’t see any impact on association with injection site reactions or changes in the pharmacokinetic profile of those with positive ADAs relative to those that have not. I’ll just remind it’s — each ADA assays bespoke antibody. It’s not uncommon for drugs to have ADA levels, and we’re quite confident as we go into subsequent work in our clinical trial program that we’ll be able to understand more of the impact of these things. At this point, we’re very encouraged with what we see in our confidence is high in this molecule.

Operator: Our next question today is coming from Sahil Dhingra from RBC.

Unknown Analyst: This is [ Sahas Badami ]. My question is related to the competitive landscape. So we have seen that Gazyva was recently approved in the LN indication. So first question is, have you seen any impact of the positioning of LUPKYNIS in the treatment landscape following that launch? And the related question is that is the approval of Gazyva incorporated in your guidance? And how do you think it will impact LUPKYNIS going forward?

Peter Greenleaf: So your first question about near-term impact from the launch, our answer would be no. We continue to see the business performing consistently as it has historically. The question of how it will perform on a go forward? Is it represented our guidance. I think our guidance represents a lot of factors, including new competition and progression of implementation of the guidelines and a multitude of different factors. As it relates to Gazyva, we actually — and all new potential competitors, as I mentioned earlier, I do think there’s major room that can be made improvement that can be made both in awareness building at the patient level, awareness building on the treatment guidelines and diagnostic guidelines for the treatment of lupus nephritis, identification and more aggressive treatment of the disease.

And all of these things will grow the market significantly before you ever get into the question of what’s the better treatment option? And there, we believe we have an incredibly competitive profile because the guidelines emphasize rapid reduction in proteinuria as early as 3 to 6 months. And I would challenge those on the call to go back and all these drugs stand on their own merits and will be used by physicians based upon the labels that they get. But if you look closely at the data, in terms of rapid improvement and reduction in proteinuria, generally speaking, the novel competitors that we’re seeing in the marketplace appear to not have the ability to reduce proteinuria levels to target treatment guideline levels as quickly as what we’ve seen with LUPKYNIS.

Greg, what would you add?

Greg Keenan: Just to put a punctuation on that point. In our pivotal trial, we saw a 50% reduction in proteinuria within 1 month’s time from initiation of LUPKYNIS in those that were studied. And we know that for hitting the primary endpoint, our study was designed to show the benefits at 12 months. the goals were achieved for the most part by 6 months’ time, I remind you that with Gazyva, the primary endpoint is at week 76, and it took that long to be able to get important clinical responses, complete renal response. It took 1.5 years. So the speed with which works is notable. Also emphasize relative to Peter’s point, Gazyva and B-Cell targeted agents are one access of the immune system, LUPKYNIS the only indicated treatment for LN that targets the T-cell and also has a photocyte protection effect.

So, these are complementary maxims action, the speed with which LUPKYNIS works is notable. And to Peter’s point, the awareness with regard to aggressive treatment that will be created by additional important agents in this area will just improve the likelihood of getting better patient outcomes.

Operator: Thank your. Next question today is coming from David Martin from Bloomberg.

David Martin: Congratulations on the quarter. I realize LUPKYNIS was launched in the U.S. market first. Do you expect the other global markets will catch up to the U.S. as far as penetration in the lupus nephritis patient population?

Peter Greenleaf: While I can’t speak directly for Otsuka, our partner in Europe and in Japan, I can give you what we hear through them and what we understand about the market, I think the short answer there, David, is no. Every country has individual pricing and reimbursement and guidelines as to how they implement the global guidelines to the treatment of the disease. Pricing in every market is different and historically has been lower than what we’ve seen in the U.S. and North America. So at least from our expectation standpoint and contribution to this company, as we’ve said historically, we don’t see it as a major contributor for our balance of the overall LUPKYNIS business. Now that being said, it has been every year a good contributor to our growth and sustaining of the business.

Just on a relative basis, it’s not a large percentage. And we don’t expect that it’s going to see the same type of aggressive treatment pricing and/or reimbursement that we see in the United States.

David Martin: Okay. And second question, are docs — are you finding — are they combining B and T-cell therapies or choosing one or the other?

Peter Greenleaf: I think it’s a really good question and one that we plan to continue to think about and potentially explore moving forward and welcome Greg’s comments here, but just one intro, if you think about it, there’s a rationale to potentially combine B-cell and more T cell-mediated therapies that could potentially even reduce proteinuria faster, but — faster and/or more effectively. But in addition, what we see probably in the market more often is that lupus patients more are being initiated or looked at as potential candidates for B-cell — novel B-cell therapies earlier in the treatment paradigm. And what needs to be considered as a lupus patient when they have controlled symptoms of their lupus, i.e., maybe fatigue or skin condition or tender and aching joints.

If those are controlled, yet they have a breakthrough of proteinuria, we often get the question of how to initiate a drug like LUPKYNIS if they’re already on a B-cell and they don’t want to take them off of that B-cell. So point being there are two reasons to potentially address this: One is to more effectively manage lupus nephritis; the other is, would you — could you not stop one therapy to continue another and is there a safe and efficacious reason for that. And we are seeing it, and we are discussing and planning internally to potentially look at how we might address this through research and development work in the combination of the two. Greg?

Greg Keenan: Craig? Yes. So thanks, Peter. And the only thing I’d add because it is logical to consider combining these. I’ll point out that the targeted approach of specific B-cell and T-cell related targeting makes logical sense relative to nonspecific immunosuppression, think of MMF and higher doses of glucocorticoids. So an additional question we get is what’s the possibility of reducing some of those other nonspecific agents. So relative to your question, the science and the academics in the field are very much posing this as a logical way to do much more targeted, efficient treatment of patients with lupus general but lupus nephritis specifically. So more work to be done there. It’s a logical question, and we intend to think about that a lot more in the upcoming months.

Operator: Our next question today is coming from Olivia Brayer from Cantor Fitzgerald.

Olivia Brayer: On aritinercept, what’s the cadence of updates that we should expect from that program. I mean it sounds like next quarter, we got some more meat on the bone. But beyond that, when can we start to expect to see more meaningful updates and data behind the program? And then given that you are looking at two indications, is there one that you maybe have higher or feel like your program has a better chance in?

Peter Greenleaf: Thanks for the question, Olivia. So I would expect to hear more in second quarter of 2026. I kind of leave it at that because we’re not giving any future view as to what we’re going to disclose or not disclose for that matter. And I would say we don’t have a preferential indication in mind in terms of probability for success or one we feel more committed to. I will say, what we’re excited about the most here is the fact that this looks like not just from our work but from the work of everyone working on both BAFF April combination or straight BAFF or straight April that these products can address a multitude of different autoimmune diseases, inflammatory conditions. And that’s probably what we’re the most excited about.

And we’re trying to take a very thoughtful methodical approach to where we start, where we create a beachhead. And if we’re successful there, we think there’s great opportunity to potentially build that — potentially build from there. And I think that’s been proven by those who are doing work here as well. So more to come. A little bit of a nonanswer, I apologize for that, but — it’s not because we don’t want to talk more about the details of our plan. We just want to be purposeful about how we roll it out.

Olivia Brayer: Okay. Understood. And then a follow-up on Gazyva. What are you guys hearing in terms of what Roche is doing to grow that market? And what’s maybe been the initial feedback from physicians just around how they’re thinking about sequencing therapies now that there are multiple options available?

Peter Greenleaf: Surprisingly, it’s been a little bit quiet. I mean, it’s much like Benlysta, the — the focus appears to be on the larger piece of the population. For context purposes, you’ve got an SLE population that’s hundreds of thousands of patients in the U.S. and an LN population, which is a subset of that SLE population that’s probably tens of thousands of patients. So if you think about it strategically and from a positioning standpoint, and I think as many are aware, Gazyva has also produced their data in lupus and it looks like they’ll have a good regulatory pathway in lupus as well, you probably want to position these products further upstream for earlier treatment in lupus was the potential to, and not that they’ve done research this way, avoid kidney complications down the road.

We know that’s how Benlysta is currently positioned in the marketplace, and I would think it highly likely that Gazyva is going to be positioned there as well. We don’t have any specifics on marketing materials or how they’re positioning it in lupus nephritis specifically. But Greg did give a good articulation earlier of where we see the competitive profile here. And we honestly and truly do believe that a rising tide lifts all boats here. More patients getting identified with nephritis, more patients getting aggressively treated with lupus, awareness building, treatment guideline adoption, all grow this market for patients and for the drugs that are trying to be utilized here for those patients.

Operator: Thank you. We have reached the end of our question-and-answer session. I’d like to turn the floor back over for any further or closing comments.

Peter Greenleaf: No. I want to thank everybody for joining us on the call today. We look forward to further updates in the future, and have a great day.

Operator: Thank you. That does conclude today’s teleconference and webcast. You may disconnect your line at this time, and have a wonderful day. We thank you for your participation.