Murdo Gordon: Okay. So first on Otezla, I would start with the fact that we are the only systemic product indicated for a broad range of psoriasis patients without regard to the severity and really makes us the ideal first-line first systemic post-topical choice of therapy. And that is the positioning of the brand. The size of that market is very large. There’s 4 million patients with a mild to moderate form of psoriasis. About 1.5 million of those patients would be regarded as not doing as well as they could on topical treatment by potential switching to a systemic like Otezla. As I mentioned just a few moments ago, Otezla also enjoys very broad frontline access, that is it doesn’t require that you step through another systemic therapy.
And it also means that prescribers can make it the first choice. And these are busy dermatologists. They want something that’s easy. They don’t want a lot of prior paperwork. And they want to be able to provide an ability for patients to start quickly on their therapy. Only Otezla offers that in the psoriasis market. I think what we’re seeing right now is an effect of a number of free goods programs that were launched at the end of last year and continue into this quarter. When physicians have free goods programs or sometimes referred to as bridging programs, usually used at the beginning of a product launch when there hasn’t been an opportunity to secure access with pharmacy benefit managers, physicians will sometimes use those to try novel therapies coming into the market.
However, as those novel therapies go through the negotiation process with PBMs and payers, oftentimes, it becomes more difficult to try those novel therapies because of the nature of the access that they result with. And I think that’s really where the sustained advantage of Otezla in that first-line systemic post-topical prebiologic patient population really allows us a long-term growth opportunity. And we continue to feel confident in the long-term growth of this brand. And we have a very strong commercial presence in a number of markets around the world and we continue to feel good from what we’re hearing from our prescribing base of dermatologists. I will say that the short-term impact of these free good programs, we’re watching it very closely and we’re making sure that we continue to be competitive in the marketplace.
Arvind Sood: Okay. Chris, the second question is the same as the question that we have from Salveen Richter of Goldman Sachs. And she says on AMGEVITA, could you offer more details on how the dual pricing option will work and drive uptick? And how should we think about net pricing? What are your expectations for the market in midyear once more biosimilars enter?
Murdo Gordon: Well, maybe I can answer the second part first. We don’t comment on product-specific pricing and so I really can’t answer the net price. I think it’s fair to say that as additional entrants come into the market, net prices usually go down. We’ve seen that in our other biosimilars business but we would expect that to happen here. With respect to the 2 list price approach that we’ve employed here at this launch, this is really to address the complexity of the U.S. market. Pharmacy benefit managers have a business model that requires that they negotiate rebates with manufacturers and so they would prefer a high list price and negotiate rebates to net the price down and then pass those rebates through to their upstream employer clients.
