Mike Mason: Yes. That’s a good question. I mean first of all, I don’t think it’s a binary point where all payers are looking for that outcome in order to provide access. I think you’re going to see a lot of payers you already see a lot of payers who can provide access for that. And we have an extensive Phase 3 program only in CV outcomes but also the sleep apnea and heart failure to begin to really talk about heart outcomes for many patients who live with obesity. With the CV outcomes that we have today, I mean we’re quite confident in our program and based on what we see with surrogate risk reduction and blood pressure and lipids, we’re fairly confident in our CV profile as well as what we saw with the SURPASS data and our meta-analysis in the SURPASS program. So I won’t give you the exact number, but I think we’re pleased with where we’re at. And I think we’ll be able to demonstrate outcomes that payers will be excited about.
Joe Fletcher: Thanks Louis for the question. Lois, next question.
Operator: And that comes from David Risinger from SVB Securities. Please go ahead.
Joe Fletcher: Dave are you there? Okay. Looks like we don’t have Dave or he’s on mute. Lois, next question.
Operator: The next question is from Chris Shibutani from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.
Chris Shibutani: Thank you. If I can ask a question on Mounjaro and the interplay with Trulicity. You’ve commented in the past that in terms of patients on Mounjaro, it has been about less than 10%. That seems to be a little bit higher now. Can you share any thoughts and observations about how you see this progressing on the forward through this year?
Joe Fletcher: Thanks Chris for the question. Mike, we’ll go to you for that question on the, I guess cannibalization from Trulicity figure and how that will progress.
Mike Mason: Okay. Yeah, I mean on that nothing has changed over what we had talked about earlier that less than 10% of our scripts we get four Mounjaro comfort Trulicity. That hasn’t changed over time. It’s still a little bit less than 10%.
Chris Shibutani: Okay. Thank you.
Joe Fletcher: Lois, next question.
Operator: And that comes from Umer Raffat from Evercore. Please go ahead.
Umer Raffat: Hi guys. Thanks for taking my question. There’s been a heightened investor focus I feel along the Phase III primary endpoint for donanemab now. And I wonder if there’s been any incremental interactions and/or agreement with FDA on the primary endpoint for Phase III. The question I get a lot from investors. And also how are you thinking about this upcoming Phase III? If there were to be a scenario where the MMRM on CDR doesn’t agree with ADAS on a patient analysis? Thank you.
Joe Fletcher: Thanks Umer. We’ll go to Dan for the question on endpoints.
Dan Skovronsky: Yeah. Thanks. Clearly I think there’s a lot we can learn from competitor readouts here. And so looking at lecanemab data in our eyes, I think it actually further validates an endpoint like ADAS. If you just look at the forest bot for example there’s a lot more homogeneity in effect on an endpoint like ADAS versus CDR Sum of Boxes. So we feel more confident I would say than ever before that endpoint like that is the right way to go. On the other hand I think the — you could take the position that since lecanemab hit CDR Sum of Boxes people might say, well then it’s achievable and you guys should do it too. So there’s some pushes and some takes there. But on the whole still feeling good about ADAS as a primary outcome.
