Rosty Raykov: Yeah. Hi, Charles, very good question. I think the goal is — I mean, it’s really since Adrian has been here, we really have been focusing on two additional opportunities. One is the AYA, and the second one is international, in addition to all the work that we have done with a large pediatric hospital center. So, I think all of these three things in place a year from now, I would imagine that we could speak to all three of them contributing substantial amounts. And of course, the AYA, as you mentioned, very well by the nature of the tumor types treated there and the nature of the cisplatin therapies treated there, would require significantly more — in the larger size of the patients, of course, would require significantly more vials of PEDMARK.
So yes, I would say that’s probably — given that it’s starting at almost zero right now, would be probably the largest. But don’t underestimate, both the pediatric hospital — I mean, the pediatric hospital, we made substantial progress. There’s still good amount of activity, and P&T wins under our belt, as well as newer ones that we’re expecting. So yeah, we could also pleasantly be surprised there as well. On the international side, of course, what really is going to drive revenues there is the — is particularly Germany and the UK, right, and France. So, certainly very encouraged by what Adrian has been able to do in Germany.
Charles Duncan: Yeah. And that’s a great segue to my next question. I was a little bit confused on some of Adrian’s answers regarding pricing. And beyond pricing, and I know that can be kind of an artifact of the certain country, I guess I’m wondering if you could perhaps talk about the pharmacoeconomic value of PEDMARK in Europe or in the UK versus here in the United States? Do you think there’s a good recognition of the downstream costs of cisplatin-induced hearing loss? And if you could gauge timing, as to being able to talk about your strategy, is it a goal for the first half of next year to be able to really come to a conclusion on what next steps are ex U.S.? Thanks.
Rosty Raykov: Yeah. I would answer the latter one, and I’ll send it over to Adrian. So, yeah, so our goal would be sometimes between now and middle of next year to have that answer on the — on what we plan on doing, either keeping the major five to ourselves and partnering the rest, or selling the European business to someone else, right? So that all will depend on several factors, importantly, what is the cash upfront? So — and maybe, Adrian, over to you in terms of the value proposition of European health dossiers for the health economics of PEDMARK to their health care systems.
Adrian Haigh: Yeah. So, I think the first thing to remind everyone of is that although you’ve got actually in Europe two regulatory authorities now, you’ve got the UK’s MHRA and the EMA, the other 27 countries, you’ve got 28 different ways of assessing whether the country can afford to pay for a drug. So, in terms of the health economic argument that we are putting together, i.e., can this country justify paying X for the drug, we’re well advanced in most of the European countries in terms of the dossier preparation, and we feel strongly that we will be able to present a convincing argument to justify paying something like at least 70% to 100% of the U.S. price in Europe, if that’s clearer.
Charles Duncan: That makes sense. I didn’t know if it was a discount or the actual price, so that helps.
Adrian Haigh: I think there will be a mixture of some degree of discounts and caps, because whilst they will be willing to pay full price for a 5-kilo hepatoblastoma patient, they won’t be willing to pay full price for a 80-kilo testicular cancer patient. So, there’s got to be some kind of cap.
Charles Duncan: That makes sense. And is there a recognition — I think you mentioned depression as an example of the downstream cost of losing one’s hearing and how that accrues cost to not only the patient but community over time.
