AMGEN ACC 2017

AMGEN ACC 2017INVESTOR RELATIONS EVENT

MARCH 17, 2017

2

Provided March 17, 2017, as part of an oral presentation and is qualified by

such, contains forward-looking statements, actual results may vary

materially; Amgen disclaims any duty to update.

SAFE HARBOR STATEMENTThis presentation contains forward-looking statements that are based on management’s current expectations and beliefs and are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties andassumptions that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, are statements that could be deemedforward-looking statements, including statements about estimates of revenues, operating margins, capital expenditures, cash, other financial metrics, expected legal, arbitration,political, regulatory or clinical results or practices, customer and prescriber patterns or practices, reimbursement activities and outcomes and other such estimates and results.Forward-looking statements involve significant risks and uncertainties, including those discussed below and more fully described in the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)reports filed by Amgen, including Amgen’s most recent annual report on Form 10-K and any subsequent periodic reports on Form 10-Q and Form 8-K. Please refer to Amgen’s mostrecent Forms 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K for additional information on the uncertainties and risk factors related to our business. Unless otherwise noted, Amgen is providing this informationas of March 17, 2017 and expressly disclaims any duty to update information contained in this presentation.

No forward-looking statement can be guaranteed and actual results may differ materially from those we project. Our results may be affected by our ability to successfully market bothnew and existing products domestically and internationally, clinical and regulatory developments involving current and future products, sales growth of recently launched products,competition from other products including biosimilars, difficulties or delays in manufacturing our products and global economic conditions. In addition, sales of our products areaffected by pricing pressure, political and public scrutiny and reimbursement policies imposed by third-party payers, including governments, private insurance plans and managedcare providers and may be affected by regulatory, clinical and guideline developments and domestic and international trends toward managed care and healthcare cost containment.Furthermore, our research, testing, pricing, marketing and other operations are subject to extensive regulation by domestic and foreign government regulatory authorities. We orothers could identify safety, side effects or manufacturing problems with our products after they are on the market. Our business may be impacted by government investigations,litigation and product liability claims. In addition, our business may be impacted by the adoption of new tax legislation or exposure to additional tax liabilities. If we fail to meet thecompliance obligations in the corporate integrity agreement between us and the U.S. government, we could become subject to significant sanctions. Further, while we routinelyobtain patents for our products and technology, the protection offered by our patents and patent applications may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented by our competitors, orwe may fail to prevail in present and future intellectual property litigation. We perform a substantial amount of our commercial manufacturing activities at a few key facilities and alsodepend on third parties for a portion of our manufacturing activities, and limits on supply may constrain sales of certain of our current products and product candidate development.In addition, we compete with other companies with respect to many of our marketed products as well as for the discovery and development of new products. Discovery oridentification of new product candidates cannot be guaranteed and movement from concept to product is uncertain; consequently, there can be no guarantee that any particularproduct candidate will be successful and become a commercial product. Further, some raw materials, medical devices and component parts for our products are supplied by solethird-party suppliers. Certain of our distributors, customers and payers have substantial purchasing leverage in their dealings with us. The discovery of significant problems with aproduct similar to one of our products that implicate an entire class of products could have a material adverse effect on sales of the affected products and on our business andresults of operations. Our efforts to acquire other companies or products and to integrate the operations of companies we have acquired may not be successful. We may not be ableto access the capital and credit markets on terms that are favorable to us, or at all. We are increasingly dependent on information technology systems, infrastructure and datasecurity. Our stock price is volatile and may be affected by a number of events. Our business performance could affect or limit the ability of our Board of Directors to declare adividend or our ability to pay a dividend or repurchase our common stock.

This presentation includes GAAP and non-GAAP financial measures. In accordance with the requirements of SEC Regulation G, reconciliations between these two measures, if theseslides are in hard copy, accompany the hard copy presentation or, if these slides are delivered electronically, are available on the Company's website at www.amgen.com within theInvestors section.

3




AGENDA

IntroductionSean Harper, M.D.—Executive Vice President, Research

and Development

Repatha® Phase 3

CV Outcomes Study

Marc Sabatine, M.D., M.P.H.—Chairman of the TIMI Study Group,

Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School

Repatha® ValueJoshua Ofman, M.D.—Senior Vice President, Global Value, Access

and Policy

Conclusion Sean Harper, M.D.

Q&A

Sean Harper, M.D.

Joshua Ofman, M.D.

Marc Sabatine, M.D., M.P.H.

Tony Hooper—Executive Vice President, Global Commercial Operations

Scott Wasserman, M.D.—Vice President, Research and Development

Terje R. Pedersen, M.D., Ph.D.—Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål

CV = cardiovascular

INTRODUCTION

MARCH 17, 2017

5




CONSISTENT RESULTS FROM REPATHA® PHASE 3 PROGRAM EVALUATING LDL-C; EFFECT ON PLAQUE BURDEN; CV OUTCOMES

Combination Therapy

Statin Intolerance

Monotherapy

HeFH

HoFH

CAD(Vascular Imaging)

Secondary Prevention (CV Outcomes)

LDL-C = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; HeFH = heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia; HoFH = homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia

CAD = coronary artery disease; = completed

REPATHA® CARDIOVASCULAR OUTCOMES STUDY RESULTS

MARCH 17, 2017

An Academic Research Organization of

Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School

FOURIERFurther cardiovascular OUtcomes

Research with PCSK9 Inhibition in

subjects with Elevated Risk

MS Sabatine, RP Giugliano, AC Keech, N Honarpour,

SM Wasserman, PS Sever, and TR Pedersen,

for the FOURIER Steering Committee & Investigators

American College of Cardiology – 66th Annual Scientific Session

Late-Breaking Clinical Trial

March 17, 2017



Sever P & Mackay J. Br J Cardiol 2014;21:91-3

Giugliano RP, et al. Lancet 2012;380:2007-17

Sabatine MS, et al. NEJM 2015;372:1500-9

Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9)

– Chaperones LDL-R to destruction circulating LDL-C

– Loss-of-fxn genetic variants LDL-R LDL-C & risk of MI

Evolocumab

– Fully human anti-

PCSK9 mAb

– ~60% LDL-C

– Safe & well-tolerated in

Ph 2 & 3 studies

– Exploratory data

suggested CV events

Background

evolocumab



Objectives

In patients with established cardiovascular disease

on statin therapy:

• Test whether the addition of evolocumab reduces the

incidence of major cardiovascular events

• Examine the long-term safety & tolerability of

evolocumab

• Investigate the efficacy and safety of achieving

unprecedented low levels of LDL-C



Trial Organization

Executive Committee

Marc S. Sabatine (Co-Chair) Terje R. Pedersen (Co-Chair)

Robert P. Giugliano Anthony C. Keech Peter S. Sever

TIMI Study Group

Stephen D. Wiviott (CEC Chair) Cheryl Lowe Leah Zahn

Marc P. Bonaca (Safety Chair) Polly Fish (Director of Ops) Tim Abrahamsen

Sabina Murphy (Director of Stats) Kelly Im (Assoc Dir Stats) Julia Kuder

Estella Kanevsky

Sponsor: Amgen

Scott M. Wasserman Narimon Honarpour Rob Scott

Armando Lira Pineda Kelly Hanlon Beat Knusel

Ransi Somaratne Christopher Kurtz Thomas Liu

Huei Wang

Independent Data Monitoring Committee

Charles H. Hennekens (Chair) Felicita Andreotti Colin Baigent

W. Virgil Brown Barry R. Davis

John W. Newcomer

Sarah K. Wood

Lipid Monitoring Committee

John LaRosa (Chair) Benjamin Ansell Anders Olsson



Trial Design

Evolocumab SC 140 mg Q2W or 420 mg QM

Placebo SCQ2W or QM

LDL-C ≥70 mg/dL or

non-HDL-C ≥100 mg/dL

Follow-up Q 12 weeks

Screening, Lipid Stabilization, and Placebo Run-in

High or moderate intensity statin therapy (± ezetimibe)

27,564 high-risk, stable patients with established CV disease

(prior MI, prior stroke, or symptomatic PAD)

RANDOMIZED

DOUBLE BLIND

Sabatine MS et al. Am Heart J 2016;173:94-101



Endpoints

• Efficacy

– Primary: CV death, MI, stroke, hosp. for UA, or coronary revasc

– Key secondary: CV death, MI or stroke

• Safety

– AEs/SAEs

– Events of interest incl. muscle-related, new-onset diabetes,

neurocognitive

– Development of anti-evolocumab Ab (binding and neutralizing)

• TIMI Clinical Events Committee (CEC)

– Adjudicated all efficacy endpoints & new-onset diabetes

– Members unaware of treatment assignment & lipid levels

Sabatine MS et al. Am Heart J 2016;173:94-101



Argentina Estonia Japan Singapore

Alberto J. Lorenzatti Margus Viigimaa Atsushi Hirayama Leslie Tay

Australia Finland Latvia Slovakia

John Amerena Matti J. Tikkanen Andrejs Erglis Slavomíra Filipová

Austria France Lithuania South Africa

Kurt Huber François Schiele Jolita Badariene Lesley Burgess

Belgium Germany Malaysia South Korea

André Scheen Ioanna Gouni-Berthold Wan A. Wan Ahmad Donghoon Choi

Brazil Greece Mexico Spain

José F.K. Saraiva Loukianos Rallidis G. Gonzalez-Galvez José López-Miranda

Bulgaria Hong Kong Netherlands Sweden

Borislav G. Georgiev Chung-Wah Siu J. Wouter Jukema Lennart Nilsson

Canada Hungary Norway Switzerland

Lawrence A. Leiter Kalman Toth Terje R. Pedersen François Mach

Chile Iceland Philippines Taiwan

Jorge L. Cobos Gudmundur Thorgeirsson Gregorio G. Rogelio Min-Ji Charng

China India Poland Turkey

Lixin Jiang P. Deedwania & V. Chopra Zbigniew A. Gaciong S. Lale Tokgozoglu

Colombia Ireland Portugal Ukraine

Jose L.A. Mendoza Brendan McAdam Jorge Ferreira Oleg Kraydashenko

Czech Republic Israel Romania United Kingdom

Richard Ceska Basil S. Lewis Gheorghe A. Dan Peter S. Sever

Denmark Italy Russia United States

Henrik K. Jensen Gaetano M. De Ferrari Marat V. Ezhov Robert P. Giugliano

Steering Committee



27,564 patients randomized at 1242 sites

in 49 countries between 2/2013 – 6/2015

Global Enrollment



Randomized 27,564 patients

Evolocumab

(N=13,784)

Placebo

(N=13,780)

Premature perm.

drug discontinuation5.6%/yr 5.8%/yr

Withdrew consent 0.29%/yr 0.35%/yr

Lost to follow-up 5 patients 13 patients

Follow-up median 26 months (IQR 22-30)

Ascertainment for primary endpoint was complete for99.5% of potential patient-years of follow up

Follow-up

2907 patients experienced primary

endpoint

1829 experienced key secondary endpoint



Baseline Characteristics

Characteristic Value

Age, years, mean (SD) 63 (9)

Male sex (%) 75

Type of cardiovascular disease (%)

Myocardial infarction 81

Stroke (non-hemorrhagic) 19

Symptomatic PAD 13

Cardiovascular risk factor (%)

Hypertension 80

Diabetes mellitus 37

Current cigarette use 28

Pooled data; no differences between treatment arms

Median time from most

recent event ~3 yrs



Baseline CV Meds


ASA and/or P2Y12 Inhibitor (%) 92

Beta-blocker (%) 76

ACE inhibitor or ARB and/or

aldosterone antagonist (%)

78



Lipid Lowering Therapy

& Lipid Levels at Baseline


Statin use (%)*

High-intensity 69

Moderate-intensity 30

Ezetimibe use (%) 5

Median lipid measures (IQR) – mg/dL

LDL-C 92 (80-109)

Total cholesterol 168 (151-189)

HDL-C 44 (37-53)

Triglycerides 133 (100-182)

Pooled data; no differences between treatment arms

*Per protocol, patients were to be on atorva ≥20 mg/d or equivalent.

1% were on low intensity or intensity data were missing.

Statin intensity defined per ACC/AHA 2013 Cholesterol Guidelines.



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108120132144156168

LD

L C

ho

les

tero

l (m

g/d

l)

Weeks

LDL Cholesterol

Evolocumab

(median 30 mg/dl, IQR 19-46 mg/dl)

Placebo

59% mean reduction (95%CI 58-60), P<0.00001

Absolute reduction: 56 mg/dl (95%CI 55-57)



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120

LD

L C

ho

les

tero

l (m

g/d

l)

Weeks

LDL Cholesterol

Cohort of 11,077 patients who

• had all measurements through 120 weeks

• did not discontinue study drug

• did not D concomitant background lipid-lowering Rx

Evolocumab

Placebo

Similar data out to 4 years

in OSLER-1

(JAMA Cardiology online)



0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

Primary Endpoint

Evolocumab

Placebo

Months from Randomization

CV

Dea

th, M

I, S

tro

ke

,

Ho

sp

fo

r U

A,

or

Co

rR

eva

sc

0 6 12 18 24 30 36

Hazard ratio 0.85

(95% CI, 0.79-0.92)

P<0.0001 12.6%

14.6%



0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

Key Secondary Endpoint


CV

Dea

th, M

I, o

r S

tro

ke

0 6 12 18 24 30 36

Hazard ratio 0.80

(95% CI, 0.73-0.88)

P<0.00001

Evolocumab

Placebo7.9%

9.9%



Types of CV Outcomes

Endpoint

Evolocumab

(N=13,784)

Placebo

(N=13,780) HR (95% CI)

3-yr Kaplan-Meier rate

CV death, MI, or stroke 7.9 9.9 0.80 (0.73-0.88)

Cardiovascular death 2.5 2.4 1.05 (0.88-1.25)

Death due to acute MI 0.26 0.32 0.84 (0.49-1.42)

Death due to stroke 0.29 0.30 0.94 (0.58-1.54)

Other CV death 1.9 1.8 1.10 (0.90-1.35)

MI 4.4 6.3 0.73 (0.65-0.82)

Stroke 2.2 2.6 0.79 (0.66-0.95)



More Intensive LDL-C Lowering

& CV Death

# of CV Deaths

Trial Year More

Intensive

Rx Arm

Less

Intensive

Rx Arm

HR (95% CI)

PROVE-IT TIMI 22 2004 27 36 0.74 (0.45-1.22)

A2Z 2004 86 111 0.76 (0.57-1.01)

TNT 2005 101 127 0.80 (0.61-1.03)

IDEAL 2005 223 218 1.03 (0.85-1.24)

SEARCH 2010 565 572 0.99 (0.88-1.11)

IMPROVE-IT 2015 538 537 1.00 (0.89-1.13)

Summary 1540 1601 0.96 (0.90-1.03)

More intensive

therapy better

Less intensive

therapy better

0.2 0.5 1 2 5NEJM 2004;350:1495-504

JAMA 2004;292:1307-16

NEJM 2005;352:1425-35

JAMA 2005;294:2437-45

Lancet 2010;376:1658-69

NEJM 2015;372:2387-97

No clear benefit on CV mortality



Types of CV Outcomes

Endpoint

Evolocumab

(N=13,784)

Placebo

(N=13,780) HR (95% CI)

3-yr Kaplan-Meier rate

CVD, MI, stroke, UA, or revasc 12.6 14.6 0.85 (0.79-0.92)

CV death, MI, or stroke 7.9 9.9 0.80 (0.73-0.88)

Cardiovascular death 2.5 2.4 1.05 (0.88-1.25)

MI 4.4 6.3 0.73 (0.65-0.82)

Stroke 2.2 2.6 0.79 (0.66-0.95)

Hosp for unstable angina 2.2 2.3 0.99 (0.82-1.18)

Coronary revasc 7.0 9.2 0.78 (0.71-0.86)

Urgent 3.7 5.4 0.73 (0.64-0.83)

Elective 3.9 4.6 0.83 (0.73-0.95)

Death from any cause 4.8 4.3 1.04 (0.91-1.19)



Key Subgroups

Subgroup PatientsOverall 27564Type of disease

MI alone 19113Stroke alone 3366PAD alone 1505Polyvascular disease 3563

Baseline LDL-CQ1 (<80 mg/dl) 6961Q2 (80-<92 mg/dl) 6886Q3 (92-109 mg/dl) 6887Q4 (>109 mg/dl) 6829

Baseline statin intensityHigh 19103Not high 8461

EzetimibeYes 1440No 26124

Initial Dosing RegimenEvery 2 weeks 24774Monthly 2790

1° Endpoint HR (95% CI) Key 2° Endpoint HR (95% CI)

1.0

EvoMab better Pbo better

0.4 2.5 1.0

EvoMab better Pbo better0.4 2.5

All Pinteractions NS



Lower LDL-C Is Better

P<0.0001

Patients divided by quartile of baseline LDL-C and by treatment arm

Q4

Q3

Q2

Q1

Q4Q3

Q2

Q1

Placebo

Evolocumab



LDL-C & D in Plaque Volume

JAMA 2016;316:2373-84



0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

Landmark Analysis

Evolocumab

Placebo


CV

Dea

th, M

I, S

tro

ke

0 3 9 12 24 30 366 12 18

16% RRR

HR 0.84 (95%CI 0.74-0.96)

P=0.008

25% RRR

HR 0.75 (95%CI 0.66-0.85)

P<0.00001



0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

Fatal or Nonfatal MI or Stroke

Evolocumab

Placebo


Fa

tal o

r N

on

fata

l M

I o

r S

tro

ke

0 3 9 12 24 30 366 12 18

19% RRR

HR 0.81 (95%CI 0.70-0.93)

P=0.003

33% RRR

HR 0.67 (95%CI 0.59-0.77)

P<0.00001



Comparison to Cholesterol

Treatment Trialists Collaboration

Major Coronary Events

Stroke

Coronary revascularization

Major Vascular Events

0.78 (0.70-0.86)

0.77 (0.66-0.91)

0.75 (0.67-0.84)

0.77 (0.73-0.82)

Lipid-lowering therapy better Lipid-lowering therapy worse

Hazard Ratio (95% CI) per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL-C

2.01.0

CTTC Meta-analysis Year 2

CTTC data from Lancet 2010;376:1670-81

0.5



Comparison to Cholesterol

Treatment Trialists Collaboration

Major Coronary Events

Stroke

Coronary revascularization

Urgent

Elective

Major Vascular Events

0.78 (0.70-0.86)

0.80 (0.71-0.90)

0.77 (0.66-0.91)

0.77 (0.63-0.94)

0.75 (0.67-0.84)

0.73 (0.62-0.86)

0.84 (0.73-0.98)

0.77 (0.73-0.82)

0.83 (0.76-0.90)

Lipid-lowering therapy better Lipid-lowering therapy worse

Hazard Ratio (95% CI) per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL-C

2.01.0

CTTC Meta-analysis Year 2

FOURIER Year 2

CTTC data from Lancet 2010;376:1670-81

0.5



Safety

Evolocumab

(N=13,769)

Placebo

(N=13,756)

Adverse events (%)

Any 77.4 77.4

Serious 24.8 24.7

Allergic reaction 3.1 2.9

Injection-site reaction 2.1 1.6

Treatment-related and led to d/c of study drug 1.6 1.5

Muscle-related 5.0 4.8

Cataract 1.7 1.8

Diabetes (new-onset) 8.1 7.7

Neurocognitive 1.6 1.5

Laboratory results (%)

Binding Ab 0.3 n/a

Neutralizing Ab none n/a

New-onset diabetes assessed in patients without diabetes at baseline; adjudicated by CEC



Summary for Evolocumab

• LDL-C by 59%

– Consistent throughout duration of trial

– Median achieved LDL-C of 30 mg/dl (IQR 19-46 mg/dl)

• CV outcomes in patients already on statin therapy

– 15% broad primary endpoint; 20% CV death, MI, or stroke

– Consistent benefit, incl. in those on high-intensity statin, low LDL-C

– 25% reduction in CV death, MI, or stroke after 1st year

– Long-term benefits consistent w/ statins per mmol/L LDL-C

• Safe and well-tolerated

– Similar rates of AEs, incl DM & neurocog events w/ EvoMab & pbo

– Rates of EvoMab discontinuation low and no greater than pbo

– No neutralizing antibodies developed



Conclusions

In patients with known cardiovascular disease:

1. PCSK9 inhibition with evolocumab

significantly & safely major cardiovascular

events when added to statin therapy

2. Benefit was achieved with lowering LDL

cholesterol well below current targets



Further Details

Article available at www.nejm.org

Slides available at www.TIMI.org

THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF REPATHA®

MARCH 17, 2017

38




IN CV DISEASE, ECONOMIC VALUE IS DRIVEN BY BASELINE EVENT RATE AND TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS

Efficacy

Baseline

Event

Rates

Direct Medical

Costs

Drug

Costs

Quality

of Life

Treatment

DurationLength

of Life

Indirect Medical

Costs

39




EVENT RATES BASED ON REAL-WORLD DATA ARE HIGHER THAN EVENT RATES REPORTED IN CLINICAL TRIALS

4.5 5.2

9.812.3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Even

t R

ate

per

100

Pati

en

t-Y

ears

Real-World

Data3

• CV events include MI, UA, IS, coronary revascularization (coronary artery bypass graft or percutaneous coronary intervention), or CV-related death

• Real-world event rates are based on an analysis of patients in the UK CPRD database between 2004 and 2011. Patients were included in the

analysis based on eligibility criteria for the Repatha® Outcomes Study—FOURIER3

CTTC1

Meta-AnalysisRepatha® Outcomes Trial2

First Event

All Events

First Event

All Events

MI = myocardial infarction; UA = unstable angina; IS = ischemic stroke; CPRD = Clinical Practice Research Datalink; 1. CTTC, et. al. Lancet 2010 376: 1670-1681; 2. Sabatine MS, et al . NEJM.

[published online ahead of print March 17, 2017]; 3.Toth PP, et al. J Med Econ. 2017. In Press

40




Analyses using event

rates from trials

Analyses using real-

world event rates

Ba

se

lin

e E

ve

nt

Ra

te (

%)

1. Kazi DS, et al. JAMA. 2016;316(7):743-753. 2. Arrieta A, et al. PLoS One. 2017;12(1):e0169761. 3. Jena AB, et al. Am J Manag Care. 2016;22(6):e199-e207. 4. Gandra SR, et al. Clin Cardiol. 2016;39(6):313-320. 5. Toth PP, et al. J Med Econ. 2017. In Press. 6. Data on file, Amgen; [PHE Analysis; 2017]

Less Value More Value

USE OF REAL-WORLD EVENT RATE DATA TRANSLATES INTO PCSK9 INHIBITOR REAL-WORLD ECONOMIC VALUE1-6

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

–

41




Value-Based Price Range†

LDL > 70 = $7,700–$11,200

LDL > 100 = $10,400–$15,000

Economic analyses using real-world event rates show value-based price ranges from $11,900–$17,000*

THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF REPATHA®

REPATHA® OUTCOMES TRIAL• 20% RRR on hard MACE composite endpoint

• 25% RRR on hard MACE composite endpoint at > year 1

• 33% RRR on fatal and nonfatal MI or CVA at > 1 year

• Economic models typically include mortality benefit seen in CTTC

• Multiple alternative approaches employed using a 2-year time lag

RRR = relative risk reduction; MACE = major adverse cardiovascular event; CVA = cerebrovascular accident; CTTC = Cholesterol Treatment Trialists Collaboration; *Jena AB,

et al. Am J Manag Care. 2016;22(6):e199-e207. Gandra SR, et al. Clin Cardiol. 2016;39(6):313-320. Toth PP, et al. J Med Econ. 2017. In Press; †Willingness to pay of $150K/QALY

PRIOR PUBLICATIONS

42




PRICES IN THE MARKET TODAY ARE WITHIN THE VALUE-BASED PRICE RANGE

Current

Net Prices

$15,000

per year

Value-Based Price Range

LDL > 100

LDL > 70

$10,400

per year

$11,200

per year$7,700

per year

43




Current utilization management is preventing appropriate patients from

getting the right treatment, the lack of outcomes data has been a barrier

and this key objection can be taken off the table

The Repatha® Outcomes data provide added conviction that the

discounted prices in the U.S. market today are value based

Innovative contracts/financial risk-sharing agreements aimed at allowing

payers to fulfill their access obligations while providing budget

predictability as utilization increases

Amgen will offer contracting options to payers willing to remove access

barriers, including one option that offers a refund of the cost of Repatha®

for all of their eligible patients who have a heart attack or stroke

AMGEN IS COMMITTED TO HELPING PATIENTS GET ACCESS TO REPATHA®

Compelling

Outcomes Data

Added Conviction

Innovative Risk-

Sharing Contracts

Outcomes-Based

Contracts

44




VALUE-BASED

PRICING

Per-Member-Per-Year

Threshold

Volume Discounts

Outcome BasedRefund

OR

LDL Contract

OR

Performance and

Outcomes Based

Contracts

CV Events Contract

OR

Contracts Based

on Cost

Predictability

TO ADDRESS ACCESS RESTRICTIONS, AMGEN IS OFFERING INNOVATIVE RISK-SHARING PERFORMANCE CONTRACTS TO ENGAGE PAYERS IN IMPROVING HEALTH OUTCOMES

These are innovative contract options that will be discussed with payers

45




NUMBER NEEDED TO TREAT (NNT) DOES NOT DETERMINE A MEDICINE’S VALUE

NNT is Not Recommended by Health Authorities*—

Is Rarely Used in Health Economics

NNT Counts Events, Not the Impact of Events

Well-Known Limitations in Health Economics

“QALYs are health economic measures

incorporating both benefits and harms of

each treatment outcome. In contrast, NNT

or NNH simply summarizes the proportion

of patients impacted positively or

negatively by the treatment”

“QALYs provide significantly more

information regarding the impact of

different outcomes that may result from

therapeutic alternatives rather than the few

outcomes addressed by NNT or NNH”

QALY = quality-adjusted life year; NNH = number needed to harm

*Sanders et al, JAMA. 2016; 316(10): 1093-1103

NNT Does Not Capture Important Elements of Value—

Quality of Life or Additional Years of Life

Garg et al, Annals of Pharmacotherapy. 2013;47(3):380-387

46




PHYSICIAN ASSOCIATIONS AND PATIENT ORGANIZATIONS ARE INCREASING THEIR ACTIVITIES ON ISSUES OF PATIENT ACCESS

American Medical Association 21 principles to reform prior-authorization requirements

American College of

Cardiology surveyBarriers to New Medications for Cardiovascular Disease

National Lipid Association survey Challenges in Prescribing PCSK9 Inhibitors

American Society for Preventive

Cardiology Town Hall meetingUnraveling a Therapeutic Conundrum: A Town Hall on Barriers

to Access PCSK9

American Association of Clinical

EndocrinologistsNew lipid guidelines published online January 30 with PCSK9s

second-line therapy after statins

FH FoundationImplementing “Find FH” to improve diagnosis rates; gathering data

on treatment patterns; collaborating with Express Scripts to improve

pharmacy coverage for patients with FH

FH = familial hypercholesterolemia

CONCLUSION

MARCH 17, 2017

48




Primary Results of EBBINGHAUS, a Cognitive Study of Patients Enrolled

in the FOURIER TrialGiugliano et. al. Abstract 404-16

Late-Breaking Clinical Trials, Saturday, March 18, 9–9:10 a.m. ET

Characteristics of Patients Approved and Denied Access

to PCSK9i Therapy by PayersBaum et al. Abstract 1258-435

Innovations in Advocacy and Patient Centered Care, Saturday, March 18, 3:45–4:30 p.m. ET

Early Challenges for PCSK9 Inhibitor Prescriptions and Patients:

Rejections and Rates UnfilledNavar et al. Abstract 415-08

Featured Clinical Research III, Sunday, March 19, 2–2:10 p.m. ET

Cardiac Myosin Activator, Omecamtiv Mecarbil, Improves Left Ventricular Myocardial

Deformation in Chronic Heart Failure (COSMIC-HF)Biering-Sørensen et al. Abstract 1248-244

Heart Failure and Cardiomyopathies: What Next When All Else Is Failing?, Saturday, March 18, 3:45–4:30 p.m. ET

AMGEN CARDIOVASCULAR: ACC 2017 HIGHLIGHTS

49




• One of the largest CV outcomes trials, including not only those with prior heart attack, but also

prior stroke and symptomatic peripheral artery disease

• Patients were on optimized statin therapy and other CV therapies

• 20% RRR in “hard” MACE composite endpoint of MI, stroke or CV death despite relatively

short (2.2 year) duration of therapy and best current care background therapy—25% RRR

beyond year 1

– Fatal and nonfatal MI or stroke: RRR = 33% beyond year 1

• Effect on CV outcomes extends to LDL-C levels as low as 20 mg/dL, consistent with the effect

seen on atherosclerotic plaque in GLAGOV, with no new safety issues identified

• We look forward to working with payers to improve the health of these high-risk patients,

and have several innovative financial risk sharing programs

• We estimate at least 100,000 heart attacks and strokes could have been avoided last year in

the U.S. alone if all of the appropriate on-label high-risk patients were treated with Repatha®

SUMMARY

Q&A

MARCH 17, 2017

AMGEN ACC 2017INVESTOR RELATIONS EVENT

MARCH 17, 2017

Investor Relations

AMGEN ACC 2017