Bob Bradway: So Robyn, maybe I’ll start on the last piece and then Pete, you can reiterate what we said about ’23. But as I said in my remarks, Robyn, we have 6 further similar launches planned between now and the end of the decade in the United States and other countries around the world. And it is the launch of those molecules through time which will enable us to continue to grow that franchise. So I would reiterate what I said earlier in my prepared comments. I think you’ve heard Murdo address as well the attractive opportunities that we think we’ll have here, in particular, with AMGEVITA though we’re in the first day of launch. And with respect to ’23, Pete, I don’t know whether you want to say anything in addition to what you already have about the outlook for the year.
Peter Griffith: Thanks. I think we covered it earlier. I’d just note a couple of items that happened in 2022 that we didn’t expect benefit from in ’23, just to reiterate those. We don’t expect any and assume any COVID-19 antibody revenues in ’23. We’re assuming a lower amount of Nplate sales in ’23, Robyn, compared to ’22. Recall, ’22 had the significant purchase by the U.S. government in the second half of the year. We had several favorable changes to estimated sales deductions that occurred in ’22 and we sold the generics business in Turkey which closed late in ’22. So a couple of puts and takes around those. And so we look forward to a year in 2023 with strong growth in our priority products, since of, Repatha, Prolia, TAVNEOS.
And also — and that’s in light of — consistent with the industry trends we talked about in our recent history with mid-single-digit price declines in our portfolio but good volume growth. I think maybe to go back to the question Jay asked, too, we expect strong volume growth outside the United States in 2023. So we’re looking forward to taking on ’23 with a lot of aggressiveness.
Arvind Sood: Okay. The next question is from Matt Phipps of William Blair. And Matt’s saying the oncology biosimilar 2023 guidance suggests a year-over-year decline of 38% versus a 30% year-over-year decline from ’21 to ’22. Is the rate of erosion in the oncology biosimilars expected to continue to get larger beyond 2023 or will this eventually hit something of a floor?
Murdo Gordon: I wouldn’t say we expect it to get larger but we will continue to see a decline in that business which is a function of the average selling price decline that we’ve seen thus far.
Arvind Sood: Yaron calling. He said I’m confused by the tax rate going up to 18% to 19% while COGS are 16% to 17%. Hence, I don’t see any offsets in the COGS line. What am I missing?
Peter Griffith: I think the answer to that is that our volume growth, the volume growth is quite large and that’s really the offset, Yaron. That’s a good question. And so we see that happening. We also — in terms of the move of the PRET down there, recall, too, in cost of sales this year, we’ve got $125 million coming in off of the release out of inventory into cost of sales without any corresponding tax provision. And so the percent of sales versus a percent of pretax too, you’ve got to be thinking about that in terms of the income tax provision itself. So that’s the puts and the takes on that. But when you strip it all back, it’s really that move of the PRET down into the income tax expense that increases that effective rate to 18% to 19%.
Arvind Sood: Okay. The next question is from from Credit Suisse. Thanks for the comments on Otezla and ENBREL. So can you add a bit more color into the dynamics in immunology? Are there any changes in the channel and mix of patients? Has there been any formulary disruptions?
