Douglas Tsao: Okay, great. That’s helpful. And then just as a follow-up, just curious, we’re going to start to get data from 117 this year. I’m just curious, should we think about that development program once we get to sort of initial proof of mechanism data sort of expanding as quickly as what we saw happen with efgartigimod? Or will that development program sort of take place in a sort of more measured pace and organically? Thank you.
Tim Van Hauwermeiren: Thanks for the 117 question. Look, 117 has its own program and its own plan behind it. And we do believe it’s a pipeline and a product. If you look at the biology, which is so universal across multiple indications. And we’re already public on MMN, also in delayed draft function. And also on dermatomyositis and there are more indications to come. Whether 117 ever will become as big as efgartigimod is a different question. But we believe that there is a significant pipeline of indications where the biology of 117 is really in play. And what is similar to efgartigimod is that we invest a lot in the translation of biology and showing the right to succeed with the C2 blocker in these indications. For example, the work we presented on multiple occasions for MMN, but now also at the JPMorgan Conference that that’s your transfer model.
Think of that type of quality, translation, biology work which is taking place in all indications we’re addressing. So that is definitely a similarity between 117 and efgartigimod. Thank you for the question.
Douglas Tsao: Just as a quick €“
Tim Van Hauwermeiren: Yes, please.
Douglas Tsao: When should we get more indications beyond this first review? Do you have a sense of that?
Tim Van Hauwermeiren: Well, leave it to the future. So there are definitely more indications. If we continue at this pace, we will already be in 20 indications. It also needs to be executionable. So let’s continue to roll out indications in a thoughtful fashion and in a fashion that we can execute, okay?
Douglas Tsao: Okay, great. Thank you so much.
Tim Van Hauwermeiren: Thank you.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of James Gordon from JPMorgan. Your line is open.
James Gordon: Hello, James Gordon from JPMorgan. Thanks for taking my question. Question about CIDP. I guess the question was, is the data I believe it’s showing what the ICE trials Stage A and part shows in Stage b. And if you do that, is that enough, do you think to be a blockbuster indication that we’ve got in CIDP? And the other part just also in CIDP, in terms of what a CIDP launch could look like. If you do show similar data to what IG is shown in CIDP. Do you think the VYVGART launch is a good proxy for CIDP for the launch like in 2024? How are you thinking, what are the considerations, please?
Tim Van Hauwermeiren: Thank you, James. And it’s a bit premature to talk about how our launch would look like in absence of data, but I’ll leave it to Keith in a minute to share some conceptual thinking on how a launch could be different between CIDP and MG. I just repeat what I said before, also during our analyst breakfast at the JPMorgan Conference, we believe that we are well equipped to compete if we come out with a, roughly speaking, similar response in stage (ph) and similar effect size to path in Stage B. We feel we will be equipped to effectively compete in such a position. The launch, of course, in such a well-entrenched market could look quite different. Keith?
