Tim Van Hauwermeiren: Thank you, Allison. Maybe Beth you take on what we expect in terms of top level data disclosures. And then I can take the question on the comparison with the past trial. Thank you.
Beth DelGiacco: Yes, of course. So the primary endpoint, as you said, in Stage B is time to relapse. And I think during our communication, we’re committed to showing the primary endpoint of Part A, the response rate, the primary endpoint of Part B, of course, with a view of safety. But beyond that, we’re not ready to provide too much information on what that top line will look like. I think what you can expect is exactly what you’ve seen with ADAPT and ADVANCE is that, we are transparent in our communication and we will make sure that we give a complete picture of what we’re seeing with those data to make sure that you understand them well.
Tim Van Hauwermeiren: Thank you, Beth. And you’re absolutely correct, Alison. The time — the primary endpoints for Stage B is time to relapse, it’s a typical end point in cancer trial. So indeed, hazard ratio would be a proper way for example to look at this data. We’re still thinking about how are you going to present the top line data, but you should be able to draw a fair comparison with the (ph) trial in the way we present the data, for example, if you don’t were to take a specific time points. So we’re still rolling it over. But in terms of separation between active and placebo path continues to be, I think, the proper benchmark to match or to beat. Thank you.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Matthew Harrison from Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.
Matthew Harrison: Great. Thanks for taking the question. I’ve asked the flavor of this question before, but I wanted to ask it again in a different way, which is, we’re expecting to get some Phase 2 studies from J&J this year, especially some of the larger indications. How should we just think about that impacting your view on what you may or may not be willing to invest in the pipeline and sort of how ready you are to potentially pivot quickly to think about investing in maybe a large Phase 3 study for some of these broad indications? Thanks very much.
Tim Van Hauwermeiren: Thanks, Matthew. Thanks for joining us today. I think overall it’s exciting to see some other players in the (ph) class venture into other indications than the argenx indications because so far we saw mainly imitation and not too much creativity. So good to see new indications coming on that where we feel there’s a different proposition from a biology rationale point of view and we’ll actually be very happy to see other people deal with these indications. So we have our own list of preferred indications, Matthew, how we select them based on biology rationale, technical feasibility and then the lead — medical lead and commercial opportunity, we’re not going to deviate from our own list, which starts from the science and the biology.
And then, of course, keenly looking at other indications which are turning data cards. Overall, I believe they will just show that the opportunity is a real big opportunity warranting multiple players active in the space. Thank you for your question.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Alex Thompson from Stifel. Your line is open.
Alex Thompson: Hey, great. Thanks for taking my question. I guess, Keith, maybe on your commentary as it relates to real world observations cycles on VYVGART. How should we think about net price per patient in 2023? Do you expect that to stay pretty constant as to what you have been guiding in 2022? Or how is that going to look moving forward, at least for the IV version? Thanks.
