Item 1A. RISK FACTORS

This report and other documents we file with the SEC contain forward-looking statements that are based on current expectations, estimates, forecasts and projections about us, our future performance, our business, our beliefs and our management’s assumptions. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties our business faces. The risks described below are not the only ones we face. Our business is also subject to the risks that affect many other companies, such as employment relations, general economic conditions, geopolitical events and international operations. Further, additional risks not currently known to us or that we currently believe are immaterial may in the future materially and adversely affect our business, operations, liquidity and stock price.

Below we provide in supplemental form the material changes to our risk factors that occurred during the past quarter. Our risk factors disclosed in Part I, Item 1A, of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, provide additional disclosure for these supplemental risks and are incorporated herein by reference.

Our sales depend on coverage and reimbursement from government and commercial third-party payers, and pricing and reimbursement pressures have affected, and are likely to continue to affect, our profitability.

Sales of our products depend on the availability and extent of coverage and reimbursement from third-party payers, including government healthcare programs and private insurance plans. Governments and private payers continue to pursue initiatives to manage drug utilization and contain costs. Further, pressures on healthcare budgets from the economic downturn and inflation continue and are likely to increase, across the markets we serve. Payers are increasingly focused on costs, which has resulted, and is expected to continue to result, in lower reimbursement rates for our products and/or narrower patient populations for which payers will reimburse. Continued intense public scrutiny of the price of drugs and other healthcare costs, together with payer dynamics, have limited, and are likely to continue to limit, our ability to set or adjust the price of our products based on their value, which can have a material adverse effect on our business. In the United States, a number of legislative and regulatory proposals have been introduced and/or signed into law to lower drug prices. These include the IRA law that enables the U.S. government to set prices for certain drugs in Medicare, redesigns Medicare Part D benefits to shift a greater proportion of the costs to manufacturers and health plans, and enables the U.S. government to impose penalties if drug prices are increased at a rate faster than inflation (IRA Inflation Penalties). On July 4, 2025, OB3 was enacted and included several changes to Medicare, Medicaid and Affordable Care Act policies, that when implemented, may adversely affect coverage and reimbursement for our products. On May 12, 2025, the Administration issued the Most-Favored-Nations (MFN) Prescription Drug Pricing Executive Order (MFN EO) aimed at using price benchmarks from other developed countries to set U.S. pricing targets. Subsequently, on July 31, 2025 the Administration sent letters to many pharmaceutical manufacturers, including Amgen (the July MFN Letter) as further described below, outlining steps that such manufacturers could take to advance actions consistent with elements of the MFN EO. Such actions could reasonably be expected to adversely affect our business. Additional proposals focused on drug pricing continue to be debated, and additional executive orders or regulatory initiatives focused on drug pricing and competition are likely to be adopted and implemented in some form. It remains unclear what further policies and/or actions the Administration will advance with respect to the MFN EO, IRA implementation, sector-specific trade policies, other drug pricing proposals, or other healthcare regulations affecting pharmaceuticals. Further, state government activity has been dynamic, including a number of states enacting new laws prohibiting restrictions on 340B Program use and limiting drug reimbursement under state run Medicaid programs. Such state laws could also eventually be adopted at the federal level.

We are unable to predict which or how many policy, regulatory, administrative or legislative changes may ultimately be, or effectively estimate the consequences to our business if, enacted and implemented. However, to the extent that payer actions further decrease or modify the coverage or reimbursement available for our products, require that we pay increased rebates or shift other costs to us, limit or affect our decisions regarding the pricing of or otherwise reduce the use of our products, such actions could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

—Changing U.S. federal coverage and reimbursement policies and practices have affected, and are likely to continue to affect, access to, pricing of, and sales of our products

A substantial proportion of our U.S. business relies on reimbursement from federal government healthcare programs and commercial insurance plans regulated by federal and state governments. See Part I, Item 1. Business—Reimbursement, of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024. Our business has been, and will continue to be, affected by legislative actions changing U.S. federal reimbursement policy. For example, the IRA includes provisions requiring that, beginning in 2026, mandatory price setting be introduced in Medicare for certain drugs paid for under Parts B and D, whereby manufacturers must accept a price established by the government or face penalties on all U.S. sales (starting with 10 drugs in 2026, adding 15 in 2027 and 2028, and adding 20 in 2029 and subsequent years such that, by 2031, approximately 100 drugs could be subject to such set prices). The Medicare price setting process for the first 10 drugs subject to Medicare price setting in Part D began in 2023, which includes ENBREL, our product that currently generates considerable revenues. In 2024, CMS set a price for ENBREL under Medicare Part D that is significantly lower than currently applicable, beginning on January 1, 2026, which we expect will negatively impact its profitability in Medicare. See Part I, Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Results of operations—Product sales—ENBREL. In January 2025, CMS announced the next 15 drugs for Medicare price setting that will be applicable beginning on January 1, 2027, which includes Otezla. In October 2025, CMS set a price, beginning on January 1, 2027, for Otezla under Medicare Part D that is significantly lower than the current price, which we expect will negatively impact its profitability in Medicare. Further, CMS has issued guidance, effective for the 2028 cycle, that allows for the re-setting of prices for drugs for which it previously set a price. Depending on the growth and success of our medicines, other of our medicines may also be subject to selection by CMS in the next, or in a future, cycle of mandatory Medicare price setting, we may be required to accept a price set by the government for Medicare using the process that was applied to ENBREL and Otezla. On April 15, 2025, the Administration issued an executive order (the April 2025 EO) that, among other directives, directs HHS to work with Congress to align the treatment of small molecule drugs and biologics in the Medicare price setting program under the IRA. It is currently unclear how such modifications would affect the timeframe in which Medicare price setting becomes applicable for selected drugs or biologics. Also under the IRA, Medicare Part D was redesigned to cap beneficiary out-of-pocket costs and, beginning January 1, 2025, Federal reinsurance will be reduced in the catastrophic phase (resulting in a shift and increase of such costs to Part D plans and manufacturers, including by requiring manufacturer discounts on applicable drugs). Further, the IRA inflation penalties allow CMS to collect rebates from manufacturers if price increases outpace inflation. Such rebate obligations began to accrue October 1, 2022 for Medicare Part D and January 1, 2023 for Medicare Part B. Several of our products have also been on lists that are issued and updated on a quarterly basis by CMS under a related program under which Medicare beneficiaries are charged reduced coinsurance if price increases exceed inflation. The IRA’s Medicare price setting and Medicare redesign are likely to have a material adverse effect on our sales, our business and our results of operations, and such impact is expected to increase through the end of the decade and will depend on factors including the extent of our portfolio’s exposure to Medicare reimbursement, the rate of inflation over time, the number of our products selected for Medicare price setting and the timing of market entry of generic or biosimilar competition. Further, following the enactment of the IRA, the environment remains dynamic, and U.S. policymakers continue to demonstrate interest in health care and drug pricing changes as well as potential changes affecting intellectual property. For example, in April 2024, CMS finalized policy changes that will give Part D plans more flexibility to substitute biosimilars for innovator products on formularies in 2025. Implementation of OB3 also may impact access to and reimbursement of our products. For example, the Congressional Budget Office has projected significant cuts to federal Medicaid spending over the next decade and an increase in the number of people without health insurance. This would place greater stress on state budgets and hospital finances, and could result in reduced access to medicines, additional pressure to further discount medicines and growth of 340B Program utilization. The April 2025 EO also directs HHS to provide recommendations within 180 days to accelerate the approval of generics, biosimilars, combination products and second-in-class medications, as well as to address Medicaid drug rebates and Medicaid drug payment methodologies, and, within one year, to develop and implement a plan to test a payment model to enable Medicare to obtain pharmaceuticals at lower cost. The MFN EO directs HHS to set MFN price targets, which HHS identified in a press release as the lowest price in an OECD country with a gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of at least 60% of the U.S. GDP per capita and applicable to brand products that do not currently have generic or biosimilar competition. The MFN EO outlined potential actions if significant progress towards MFN price targets is not made including: proposing a rulemaking plan to impose MFN pricing; considering actions to support importation of drugs in certain circumstances; undertaking enforcement action against anti-competitive practices; considering actions regarding the export of drugs or precursor material; and reviewing and potentially modifying or revoking approvals granted for drugs that are newly determined to be unsafe, ineffective or improperly marketed. The MFN EO also directs the Secretary of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative to take all necessary and appropriate action to ensure foreign countries are not engaged in any act, policy or practice that may be unreasonable or discriminatory, and directs HHS to facilitate direct-to-consumer purchasing programs at MFN prices. The July MFN Letter calls for drug manufacturers to: 1) extend MFN pricing to Medicaid; 2) guarantee MFN pricing to Medicaid, Medicare and commercial payers on all newly launched drugs; 3) use future increased revenues from outside the U.S. to lower U.S. drug prices; and 4) participate in direct-to-consumer models to provide MFN pricing for certain drugs. The details of these requests and how they might be

operationalized are unclear, but if put into place they could reasonably be expected to adversely affect our business. Recently, three drug manufacturers announced agreements with the Administration that are reported to fully address the July MFN Letter, and other manufacturers may enter into similar agreements in the future. Separate from the MFN EO and the July MFN Letter, other CMS policy changes and demonstration projects to test new care, delivery and payment models can also significantly affect how drugs, including our products, are covered and reimbursed.

We also face risks related to the reporting of pricing data that affects reimbursement of and discounts provided for our products. U.S. government price reporting regulations are complex and may require biopharmaceutical manufacturers to update certain previously submitted data. If our submitted pricing data are incorrect, we may become subject to substantial fines and penalties or other government enforcement actions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. In addition, as a result of restating previously reported price data, we may be required to pay additional rebates and provide additional discounts.

—Changing reimbursement and pricing actions in various states have negatively affected, and may continue to negatively affect, access to, and have affected, and may continue to affect, sales of our products

At the state level, legislation, government actions and ballot initiatives can also affect how our products are covered and reimbursed and/or create additional pressure on our pricing decisions. Existing and proposed state pricing laws, which may move forward more rapidly than similar efforts at the federal level, have added complexity to the pricing of drugs. A number of states have adopted, and many other states are considering, PDABs, drug importation programs, reference pricing schemes and other drug pricing actions, including proposals designed to require biopharmaceutical manufacturers to report to the state proprietary pricing information or provide advance notice of certain price increases.

States are also enacting laws referencing the IRA and seeking to regulate and prohibit restrictions on the 340B Program. For example, following the passage of the IRA, bills have been proposed in multiple states that would apply the drug price caps set by HHS for Medicare to drug prices in an individual state, and such references to IRA price caps have also been included in PDAB legislation. For Medicaid patients, states have established a Medicaid drug spending cap (New York) and implemented a new review and supplemental rebate negotiation process (Massachusetts). Eight states (Colorado, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington) have enacted laws that establish PDABs to identify drugs that pose affordability challenges, and four such states include authority for the state PDABs to set upper payment limits on certain drugs for in-state patients, payers and providers. In 2024 and 2025, no fewer than 17 states and nine states, respectively, introduced PDAB legislation, and in 2025 Maryland expanded the scope of its PDAB law to include the commercial market. The eight states with enacted PDAB laws are in various phases of implementation, with Colorado’s PDAB being the furthest along. The Colorado PDAB deemed three of five drugs “unaffordable,” including ENBREL, and in October 2025 the Colorado PDAB established an Upper Payment Limit (UPL) substantially lower than the wholesale acquisition cost of ENBREL that would be generally applicable to all formulations of ENBREL, effective no earlier than January 1, 2027, and will be reviewed annually. On July 16, 2025, Washington state’s PDAB selected ENBREL for one of its first affordability reviews. Following the timeline and process established by the state for such affordability review, the manufacturer and the PDAB will undertake a number of required interactions. However, the Washington state PDAB may not establish a UPL for any prescription drug before January 1, 2027. Further, inappropriate expanded utilization of the 340B Program from broadened application of the 340B discounts has had, and is expected to continue to have, a negative impact on the Company’s product sales, business and results of operations. Twenty states (Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Maryland, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Nebraska, New Mexico, Colorado, Tennessee, Oregon, Vermont, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Maine) have enacted laws with mandates on manufacturers participating in the 340B Program, and, in 2025, no fewer than 30 states have introduced similar legislation. These bills vary, but typically include provisions restricting a manufacturer’s ability to direct drugs in 340B channels, recognizing 340B contract pharmacies and a prohibition on requiring the inclusion of 340B claims modifiers. With OB3’s reductions to federal Medicaid funding to states, increased pressure is anticipated for providers to find and preserve existing revenue sources at the state level, which may result in increased use of 340B contract pharmacy mandates. In Genesis Health Care, Inc. v. Becerra, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina issued an order in November 2023 enjoining the Health Resources and Services Administration from enforcing a more restrictive interpretation against Genesis Health Care as to who qualifies as a patient under the 340B Program, potentially expanding access to 340B discounts for healthcare systems. Since this decision, several courts have rejected arguments that state 340B laws are preempted by the federal 340B statute and have declined to enjoin such laws. These rulings, including decisions in Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota and Tennessee, have been accompanied by a growing number of states pursuing similar legislation.

Additionally, in 2024, the FDA authorized Florida to move forward with its importation program proposal, though the state has not yet completed any significant steps towards importation within the two-year authorization window. Colorado, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Texas and Vermont have also enacted state importation laws, and some have submitted plans for approval to the FDA. Other states could adopt similar approaches or could pursue different policy changes in a continuing effort to reduce their costs. Further, the April 2025 EO also directs HHS to, within 90 days, streamline and improve the drug importation program to ease the process for states to obtain drug importation approvals. On May 21, 2025, the FDA issued a press release indicating it was taking steps to enhance state importation programs and would offer individual states and tribes the opportunity to submit draft proposals for pre-review and to meet with the agency to obtain initial feedback prior to formally submitting importation proposals. While under federal law biologics remain exempt from such state importation activities, our small molecule products could be impacted by these initiatives.

Ultimately, as with U.S. federal government actions, existing or future state government actions or ballot initiatives may also have a material adverse effect on our product sales, business and results of operations.

—U.S. commercial payer actions have affected, and may continue to affect, access to and sales of our products

Payers, including healthcare insurers, PBMs, integrated healthcare delivery systems (vertically-integrated organizations built from consolidations of healthcare insurers and PBMs) and group purchasing organizations, are continuing to seek ways to further reduce their costs. With increasing frequency, payers are adopting benefit plan changes that shift a greater proportion of drug costs to patients. Such measures include more limited benefit plan designs, high deductible plans, higher patient co-pay or coinsurance obligations and more significant limitations on patients’ use of manufacturer commercial co-pay assistance programs. Further, government regulation of payers may affect these trends. Payers, including PBMs, have sought, and continue to seek, price discounts or rebates in connection with the placement of our products on their formularies or those they manage, and to also impose restrictions on access to, or usage of, our products (such as Step Therapy), require that patients receive the payer’s prior authorization before covering the product, and/or chosen to exclude certain indications for which our products are approved. For example, some payers require physicians to demonstrate or document that the patients for whom Repatha has been prescribed meet their utilization criteria, and these requirements have served to limit patient access to Repatha treatment. In an effort to reduce barriers to access, we reduced the net price of Repatha by providing greater discounts and rebates to payers (including PBMs that administer Medicare Part D prescription drug plans), and in response to a very high percentage of Medicare patients abandoning their Repatha prescriptions rather than paying their co-pay, we introduced a set of new National Drug Codes to make Repatha available at a lower list price. However, affordability of patient out-of-pocket co-pay cost has limited, and, going forward, may in the future limit, patient use. Further, despite these net and list price reductions, some payers have restricted, and may continue to restrict, patient access and may seek further discounts or rebates or take other actions, such as changing formulary coverage for Repatha, that could reduce its sales. These factors have limited, and may continue to limit, patient affordability and use, negatively affecting Repatha sales.

Further, significant consolidation in the health insurance industry has resulted in a few large insurers and PBMs, which places greater pressure on pricing and usage negotiations with biopharmaceutical manufacturers, significantly increasing discount and rebate requirements and limiting patient access and usage. See our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors*—Concentration of sales at certain of our wholesaler distributors, and consolidation of private payers, such as insurers, and PBMs has negatively affected, and may continue to negatively affect, our business.* This high degree of consolidation among insurers, PBMs and other payers, including integrated healthcare delivery systems and/or with specialty or mail-order pharmacies and pharmacy retailers, has increased the negotiating leverage such entities have over us and other biopharmaceutical manufacturers and has resulted in greater price discounts, rebates and service fees realized by those payers from our business. Each of CVS, Express Scripts and United Health Group (among the top six integrated health plans and PBMs) have Rebate Management Organizations that further increase their leverage to negotiate deeper discounts on their behalf and for the benefit of their other customers. Ultimately, additional discounts, rebates, fees, coverage changes, plan changes, restrictions or exclusions imposed by these commercial payers could have a material adverse effect on our product sales, business and results of operations. Policy reforms advanced by Congress, the Administration or the states that refine the role of PBMs in the U.S. marketplace could have downstream implications or consequences for our business and how we interact with these entities. For example, in September 2024, the Federal Trade Commission brought action against the three largest PBMs alleging anticompetitive and unfair rebating practices. In addition, multiple Congressional Committees have been investigating PBM practices and have also proposed legislation that could increase transparency and reporting of these practices and/or impact rebates and service fees. The results of such inquiries could have an effect on manufacturer interactions with PBMs, resulting in changes to access for certain medicines. See our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors*—Concentration of sales at certain of our wholesaler distributors, and consolidation of private payers, such as insurers, and PBMs has negatively affected, and may continue to negatively affect, our business.*

Our business is also affected by policies implemented by private healthcare entities that process Medicare claims, including Medicare Administrative Contractors. For example, in 2022, several Medicare Administrative Contractors issued notice that TEZSPIRE would be added to their “self-administered drug” exclusion lists. Although the Medicare Administrative Contractors subsequently removed TEZSPIRE from their exclusion lists, these exclusions, if reintroduced and/or implemented, would result in Medicare beneficiaries with severe asthma losing access to TEZSPIRE coverage under Medicare Part B and potentially also under Medicare Advantage.

—Government and commercial payer actions outside the United States have affected and will continue to affect access to and sales of our products

Outside the United States, we expect countries will also continue to take actions to reduce their drug expenditures and to reduce intellectual property protections. See Part I, Item 1. Business—Reimbursement, of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024. Pressures to decrease drug expenditures may intensify as governments take actions to address budgets strained by high inflation and weak economic conditions, including in Europe where the effects of the Russia–Ukraine conflict have challenged the economies in that region. Further, the EU is currently undergoing a review and revision of its general pharmaceutical legislation that, while full implementation is not expected before 2027, has led to proposals that would reduce intellectual property protection for new products (including potentially shortening the duration of regulatory data exclusivity and orphan drug exclusivity protections), as well as change the reimbursement and regulatory landscape. International reference pricing has been widely used by many countries outside the United States to control costs. International reference pricing policies can change quickly and frequently and may not reflect differences in the burden of disease, indications, market structures or affordability across countries or regions. Other expenditure control practices, including the use of revenue clawbacks, rebates and caps on product sales, are also used in various foreign jurisdictions. In addition, countries may refuse to reimburse, or may restrict the reimbursed population for a product, when their national health technology assessments do not consider a medicine to demonstrate sufficient clinical benefit beyond existing therapies or to meet certain cost effectiveness thresholds. For example, despite the European Medicines Agency’s approval of Repatha for the treatment of patients with established atherosclerotic disease, prior to 2020, the reimbursement of Repatha in France was limited to a narrower patient population (such as those with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH)) following a national health technology assessment. Many countries decide on reimbursement between potentially competing products through national or regional tenders that often result in one product receiving most, or all of, the sales in that country or region. Failure to obtain coverage and reimbursement for our products, a deterioration in their existing coverage and reimbursement, or a decline in the timeliness or certainty of payment by payers to hospitals and other providers, has negatively affected, and may further negatively affect, the ability or willingness of healthcare providers to prescribe our products for their patients and otherwise negatively affect the use of our products or the prices we realize for them. Such failures and changes have had, and could in the future have, a material adverse effect on our product sales, business and results of operations.

Global economic conditions may negatively affect us and may magnify certain risks that affect our business.

Our operations and performance have been, and may continue to be, affected by global economic conditions. The economic downturn resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic precipitated a global recession, which was followed by high rates of inflation and actions taken by financial regulators to raise interest rates. Instability in the financial system, tighter lending standards and higher interest rates have added stress that may create additional vulnerabilities in the global economy, the effects of which may be of an extended duration. Additionally, with higher interest rates, deficits (including those associated with the pandemic), and other fiscal pressures, governments may be unable to sustain their previously high levels of fiscal spending. Further, in the United States, Congress was not able to come to agreement on extending government funding before a September 30, 2025 deadline, resulting in a federal government shutdown, and government funding remains at risk of additional disruptions if legislation providing full funding for the fiscal year is not enacted. In addition, as this budget impasse reportedly involves disagreement over the continuation of Affordable Care Act premium subsidies, this disagreement could lead to pressure on Congress to take further actions to pay for healthcare. Also, the federal government shutdown has disrupted, and may have the potential to disrupt, certain federal agency operations, government contract negotiations and regulatory activities, including delays to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s processing of import clearances for products and materials, and potential delays to the FDA’s review of product applications and new indication filings. Further, these and other financial pressures have caused, and may continue to cause, government or other third-party payers to more aggressively seek cost containment measures in healthcare and other settings. See Our sales depend on coverage and reimbursement from government and commercial third-party payers, and pricing and reimbursement pressures have affected, and are likely to continue to affect, our profitability. As a result of global economic conditions, some third-party payers may delay or be unable to satisfy their reimbursement obligations. Job losses or other economic hardships (including inflation) may also affect patients’ ability to afford healthcare as a result of increased co-pay or deductible obligations, greater cost sensitivity to existing co-pay or deductible obligations, lost healthcare insurance coverage or for other reasons. We believe such conditions have led and could continue to lead to reduced demand for our products, which could have a material adverse effect on our product sales, business and results of operations. The cumulative effects of inflationary pressures, an uncertain trade environment with escalating and

rapidly-changing tariffs, and the effects from the armed conflict in Ukraine (including the effects of the sanctions that were implemented in response to the conflict and the resulting impacts on the commodity market and supply chains) and the Middle East have also increased our operating expenses and may continue to affect our operating expenses. Our operational costs, including the cost of energy, materials, labor, distribution and our other operational and facilities costs are subject to market conditions and are being adversely affected by inflationary pressures. Inflationary pressure has increased, potentially due, in part, to newly imposed tariffs and retaliatory trade actions. Although we monitor our distributors’, customers’ and suppliers’ financial condition and their liquidity to mitigate our business risks, some of our distributors, customers and suppliers may become insolvent, which could have a material adverse effect on our product sales, business and results of operations. A significant worsening of global economic conditions could precipitate or materially amplify the other risks described herein. On April 2, 2025, the Administration issued an executive order (the April 2025 Tariff EO) imposing a universal 10% tariff on all imported goods, with certain exceptions including pharmaceuticals. The April 2025 Tariff EO imposed additional higher tariffs on approximately 60 countries with which the United States has trade deficits. However, on April 9, 2025 the Administration temporarily placed the country-specific tariffs on hold for 90 days, except the tariff on goods imported from China, which was subsequently raised to 145%. Shortly after the April 2025 Tariff EO, China announced 34% retaliatory tariffs that were subsequently increased to 125% on goods imported from the United States. The EU also announced 25% retaliatory tariffs on certain goods imported from the United States, excluding pharmaceuticals, which was subsequently paused for 90 days in response to the Administration’s pause on country-specific tariffs. While the April 2025 Tariff EO exempts pharmaceuticals, the universal 10% tariff and any foreign retaliatory tariffs will increase certain of our costs, including the materials we use to manufacture our products as well as to conduct our research and development activities, such as delivery devices, consumable supplies and certain other laboratory materials, and the tariffs imposed by China may negatively affect our business in that country. In July 2025, the Administration signed executive orders that raised or modified the country-specific tariffs for more than 60 countries that became effective on August 7, 2025 (the July Tariff EOs). On August 21, 2025, the Administration also announced that it reached an agreement with the EU on a trade framework that establishes a baseline 15% tariff on most EU goods, with a specific exemption for generic pharmaceuticals, beginning on September 1, 2025. In April 2025, the Administration also initiated an investigation under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 of the importation of pharmaceuticals, pharmaceutical ingredients and their derivative products, which may lead to the imposition of a sector-specific tariff on such products. In July 2025, the Administration stated the intention that such tariff rate could be up to 200% and could be effective in 12 to 18 months following such tariff’s finalization. Further details about such potential tariff on pharmaceuticals remain uncertain. Depending on the scope of any final Section 232 tariff on the pharmaceuticals, it could apply not only to finished pharmaceutical products but also to active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), and key starting and upstream materials, potentially increasing our manufacturing and development costs. As such, a Section 232 tariff on pharmaceuticals could significantly increase our costs, particularly for our products that rely on globally distributed manufacturing, transportation or sourcing networks. On September 25, 2025, it was reported that the Administration would impose a 100% tariff on all branded or patented pharmaceutical products unless the manufacturer is in the process of building a manufacturing plant in the United States. Details regarding the scope, timing and implementation of this proposal remain uncertain. Subsequently, the Administration indicated these pharmaceutical tariffs were “paused” while they negotiate with companies on MFN pricing. Additionally, if the current tariff exemptions applicable to pharmaceutical products are revoked, our product sales and research and development activities may also be adversely affected. Further, the administrative requirements of tariffs across global trade could also slow and/or delay the processing and delivery of products and materials in supply chains. On October 24, 2025, the Administration initiated, under the Trade Act of 1974, a Section 301 investigation of China’s implementation of the Economic and Trade Agreement between the U.S. and Chinese governments. This investigation, and any other 301 investigations initiated, may result in additional tariffs on imported goods from China and any other foreign markets subsequently investigated, respectively, potentially including pharmaceutical products and other goods that Amgen requires for the manufacture of our products. If subject to Section 301 tariffs, China, and other affected foreign governments, may retaliate against such tariffs by imposing tariffs of their own on U.S.-made goods. Given the many uncertainties and variables, it is currently unclear the extent, and degree, to which existing and future tariffs will disrupt and adversely affect our business activities (including product sales, and conduct of clinical trial and research and development activities), and the global economic environment, and/or amplify the other risks described herein. See our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors*—We may not be able to access the capital and credit markets on terms that are favorable to us, or at all*.

We maintain a significant portfolio of investments on our consolidated balance sheets. In the recent past, the global COVID-19 pandemic and interest rate increases have led to disruption and volatility in the global capital markets. We have certain assets, including equity investments, that are exposed to market fluctuations that could, in a sustained or recurrent series of market disruptions, result in impairments. The value of our investments may also be adversely affected by interest rate fluctuations, inflation, downgrades in credit ratings, illiquidity in the capital markets, geopolitical events and other factors that may result in other-than-temporary declines in the value of our investments. Any of those events could cause us to record impairment charges with respect to our investment portfolio or to realize losses on sales of investments. We also maintain a majority of our cash and cash equivalents in accounts with major multi-national financial institutions, and our deposits at these

institutions exceed insured limits. Market conditions can adversely affect the viability of these institutions. In the event of failure of any of the financial institutions where we maintain our cash and cash equivalents, there can be no assurance that we would be able to access uninsured funds in a timely manner or at all. Inability to access, or a delay in accessing these funds, could adversely affect our business and financial position.

During the three months ended September 30, 2025, we had one outstanding stock repurchase program, under which we had no repurchase activity.

(1) In August 2025, the Company purchased 1,700 shares at an average price paid of $284.67 per share from a staff member to satisfy federal law compliance obligations. These shares were not repurchased under our stock repurchase program.