Steve Scala: Thank you. A question for Anat. I’m not going to get the legislative particulars correct. But just to be clear, doesn’t Lilly typically guide on tax rate assuming an adverse US situation and doesn’t typically adjust that until late in the year. And this year it is assuming no adverse situation but much earlier in the year? If so, can you clarify why you were doing something different this year since it is a profound impact on earnings? And if I could just add on LPA, Dave, Lilly is way behind, how can you catch up? Thank you.
Joe Fletcher: Thanks Steve. I’ll go to Anat for the question on the tax rate assumptions, and then I’ll go to Dan for your LP little a question.
Anat Ashkenazi: Thanks Steve. So here is how we look at this and I wouldn’t read too much into it. Last year we had assumed based on very broad support for change in this 2017 tax provision, that this will in fact be enacted by Congress. We assumed late in the year, but it hasn’t happened. So at this point, the only thing we’re doing is reflecting reality of the situation we’re in. If it does get repealed or deferred, obviously, we’ll update accordingly. I don’t think the likelihood of that is zero. So it still could happen this year, but it does take Congress — Congress will need to add to get this going. So we’re simply reflecting the current situation.
Dan Skovronsky: Okay. I’ll start with the LP little a question. We have two LP little a programs, so maybe the easiest one to comment on first is the oral program. This is a first-in-class I think, probably the only one in clinic here. An oral medication against this target is really a huge feat of molecular engineering. I’m super excited to see the data from this molecule developed and obviously, the market opportunity for an oral drug for such a widespread condition is very important. In terms of the siRNA, you’re right to note that a competitor is ahead of us and really just starting the CVOT study. It’s a long road to get these drugs to market with outcome studies are needed here to show the benefit. I probably don’t get into our differentiation strategy. But, of course, we have some ideas here and we’ll move as quickly as possible. I don’t see this as a winner take all space.
Dave Ricks: Maybe just to add — Steve add on the LP little a comment. I think we feel good about where we are with that. But just on the tax thing, there is a difference here where you described it as adverse or beneficial, right? From a GAAP and non-GAAP accounting, of course, it’s a benefit on EPS growth. But actually from a cash perspective, it goes the other way. So we just wanted to be clear upfront, because it’s not a one-way benefit we’re taking early in the year. There’s an adverse cash impact throughout the year and a positive effect on the P&L. It’s a little bit different from maybe past assumptions we’ve made. Lois, next question.
Operator: The next question is from Louise Chen from Cantor. Please go ahead.
Louise Chen: Hi. Thanks for taking my question. So I wanted to ask you, what do you think is the minimum amount of relative risk reduction you’d have to see in an outcome study for obesity for payers to be convinced that there’s something here? Thank you.
Joe Fletcher: Thanks Louise. Mike, do you want to chime in on that around the minimum amount of relative risk reduction we’d expect in an outcome study for obesity?
