We’re trying to minimize things like disposable items, minimize the size of the packaging, things that really physicians care about for stocking and the environment and things like that. So we’re really looking at it kind of from a 360 perspective to provide retinal specialists and ophthalmologists something that they find to be easy, ergonomic, and very reliable, even when delivering up to three inserts.
Yale Jen: Okay, great. That’s very helpful. Maybe two quick ones. The first one is in terms of the — you announced yesterday. My question is why choose C5 versus other sort of complements which are also in development, is there any specific sort of reason for that?
Nancy Lurker: Let me take that. Look, Rallybio is a great company, and they’ve got a C5 that is validated in some of their other clinical trials. We like a lot of it also depends on making sure that you get the right terms and you’ve got a good partnership. C5 and C6 both are validated targets. Right now, I would say we’re probably neutral between the two. So our goal was to work with a partner that we had a good collaboration with, has a validated target, and we are in sync. So I think it is just as simple as that. And look, it’s certainly a well validated target. I think there’s a lot yet to play out between the nuances between C3 and C5, but I want to state both of them are highly validated targets now.
Jay Duker: And if I could add, check it out to that. We’re still watching very carefully this space and looking at potentially other partnerships and other targets. Other companies are looking at membrane attack complex as a target, as well as Complement Vector B. And I think both of those are promising. They’re clearly not as validated as either C3 or C5. But I don’t think from a scientific perspective, you should view this partnership as we believe C5 is validated while C3 or the other ones are not, not at all. We think that there may be multiple ways to block Complement successfully here in what we can provide is that zero order kinetics sustained release fewer injections, and perhaps because of your order kinetics better results.
Yale Jen: Okay, great. And then last question here is that the given YUTIQ has a pretty robust quarter sales and should we anticipate at least for a modeling perspective, that 2023 quarterly that will be — the fourth quarter number will be a baseline moving forward for 2023?
Nancy Lurker: Yeah, first of all, let me reiterate, yeah, we don’t give guidance, we never have, and we’re not going to start. Second of all, and by the way, just take the pandemic as a case in point so in terms of being able to project guidance. The other issue is that remember, in Medicare Part B drugs, and frankly probably a lot of Medicare Part D as well, you end up with quarterly to quarterly fluctuations. So first quarter, oftentimes is lower in all — in most categories of drugs, it is lower than fourth quarter the prior year. And the reason is, because insurance resets, co-pays kick back in again, and so patients tend to — and also you get holiday bills coming in. So what we find is first quarter patients tend to skimp on their drug utilization.
That being said, we are looking great in first quarter and we do expect 2023 overall, will be higher than 2022. But I’m not going to sit here and project quarter by quarter by quarter because again, this is a category in Medicare Part B, where co pays kick in and first quarter can oftentimes be a little weaker than fourth quarter. But again, we want to look year-over-year, quarter-over-yearly quarter. And we expect to continue to have slightly higher highs each quarter over prior year’s quarter.
Yale Jen: Okay, great. That’s very, very helpful and congrats on all the progress.
Nancy Lurker: Yeah, thank you.
