Karl Gubitz: It’s Karl here. So maybe I’ll take that question. So we got it in the beginning of last year at typical net price of $225,000. And if we look at all the data points, the average wait per patient, the number of cycles, the gross to net, the value based agreements, we are taking all of those things in account, we think that the $225,000 per patient, those stems for 2023.
Alex Thompson: Great. Thanks.
Karl Gubitz: Thank you for your question.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Will Olds from Evercore. Your line is open.
Will Olds: Hey, guys. Congrats on the great quarter. I’m very curious about the
Tim Van Hauwermeiren: I could not understand the question. Did anyone else understand it?
Beth DelGiacco: Yes, it’s about thyroid eye disease and the positioning and the potential trial design.
Tim Van Hauwermeiren: Okay. So the only thing we have disclosed at the JPMorgan Conference is the choice for this indication. This is for once an indication where we’re not leading. I mean, we will not be first to market in those indications. So I think we have been speaking mainly about the biology rationale but we reserve the right to answer your question until we will disclose the trial design and then we can expand on competitive positioning, but it’s a bit premature for us to comment on it right now. So bear with us, that will come later in the year. Thank you.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Joel Beatty from Baird. Your line is open.
Joel Beatty: Great. Thanks for taking the question. For the current FDA review of subcu for Cusatuzumab, is there a potential to add zero negative patients to both subcu and IV labels?
Tim Van Hauwermeiren: Thank you for this question. In the bridging study, remember, this was a head to head comparison of almost inferiority trial between the IV version of VYVGART and the subcu product presentation of VYVGART. We basically included again both zero positive patients and zero negative patients. And again, VYVGART has shown that it works equally well across the board in a non-inferior manner between subcu and IV. So together with some other data, which we collected from the real world and the rollover from the ADAPT trial in the OLE. We have been bringing all these data together and we resubmitted them to the FDA, making a case for the negatives. But again, this is a review issue. This is not in our hands only. We submitted the data and we look forward to the interaction with the FDA on this topic. Thanks for the question.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Douglas Tsao from H. C. Wainwright. Your line is open.
Douglas Tsao: Hi, good morning. Thanks for taking the questions. And first, I send my regards to Keith and congratulations. It’s been great to know him. Maybe first question t Keith. You mentioned sort of insurance resets and just curious how that might be — how that’s playing out in the real world just given timing of cycles and re dosing and just assuring sort of continuity of treatment?
Keith Woods: First of all, thanks for the comments Douglas and also the question. But the bottom line is, as we go through the insurance reverification, almost all of our policies, we said 90% covered lives with 80% of those being favorable. Most of those policies — almost all are approved for anywhere from six to 12 months. So we just go through the reverification process. I can tell you that as Karl said about our net that we projected even prior to launch still stands true and goes into 2023. I think it puts us in a very credible position with payers because what we talked about before launch is actually coming to fruition. And so as we go through the recertification, we’re not seeing challenges. We’re just seeing a little bit more time consuming.
