Peter Welford: Yes. Hi. I will stick to one question. I am just curious on Arexvy with regards to the 50 to 59 year olds. Your degree of confidence that you will get a positive CDC ACIP review of that given some of the prior commentary in the earlier ACIP this year. And obviously it’s not in the approval but just thinking about the ACIP rather than the FDA and I’d love related to that, any commentary that you have on the recent headline data we saw for an 18 to 59 year old cohort from your competitor and whether you think there is any commercial risk from the 18 to 50 year old cohort that there is there? Thank you.
Tony Wood: Yes. So just quickly then, Peter, FDA accepted the submission, we have a PDUFA date for June so it will be available for ACIP and as Luke mentioned in the 50 to 59 population we are focused on high-risk individuals. The data is just as strong as the 60-plus population, so I think we are in good shape for that particular decision. And then remind me what the second question…
Emma Walmsley: Well, Luke will take the second question.
Luke Miels: Yes. I mean, I think the other thing to factor in, Peter, is you have seven new ACIP members now and a new Chair, so the question will be will you see a change in behaviour. Now if you look at the 18 to 59 with Pfizer and the commercial consequences of that. I mean, in the end, the bulk of this volume is going to be driven by retail business, 90%, and that’s older individuals and we have seen that pattern again with Shingrix. Remember, we have the IC label for 18-plus there and it’s small numbers. It does help with contracting but the 50 to 59 for us also helps with contracting. The younger individuals are more likely to be the non-Medicare population and more likely to be treated in non-retail, e.g. maternal patients, et cetera, so not too concerned about it at this point.
Tony Wood: And we’re the first to submit a file in the 50 to 59 adult population.
Nick Stone: Okay. Next question will come to Tim Anderson at Wolfe Research. Over to you, please.
Timothy Anderson: Thanks. On depemokimab, your confidence in the level of having compelling data. And then your excitement about the commercial opportunity, to me it seems like a twice-year injection would be quite compelling and could make it the category leader, but maybe that’s unrealistic? I can’t ever tell how excited you are about that program, and it partly cannibalises Nucala. And then just Blenrep, it’s pretty clear it’s coming back to market, do you think we’re just completely passed there being any commercial considerations on the eye tox issue? Would you still think that’s going to be something to contend with given what else is available out there?
Emma Walmsley: Okay. Well, listen, thanks, Tim. First of all, I’m going to come to Tony and then Luke in a second on depe, which obviously the readouts are coming this coming quarter. Also, we can hear on Blenrep and the commercial impact around eye tox, but let me start by simply saying it is hard for you to understand whether we’re excited. I refer everybody to the Meet the Management which was done specifically on Respiratory when we were clear, we thought that peak year sales in IL-5s led by long-acting, and a lot of great data and research that I’m sure Luke can repeat, means we think that this is a very important pillar for us and one of the most, Julie mentioned earlier, important ‘unlocks’ for us to see. But Tony, do you want to…
Tony Wood: Yes. So just to remind you, full dataset available at the end of this half, so we will update you on it next half. Confidence in the data comes from very clear PK/PD relationships from our Nucala experience. And I’d leave it at that actually rather than getting into any more details.
Luke Miels: Yes. So, yes, it’s really interesting. I’m excited about depemokimab, this is me being excited, Tim.
Emma Walmsley: You have to translate the Australian accent! This is max enthusiasm!
Luke Miels: Exactly, max enthusiasm! You have a validated mechanism that physicians are aware of, you got this trend towards remission, you have a Part B component which obviously has certain incentives in the U.S. environment, which is encouraging. The physician has total control over compliance, and we know from our market research that patients would prefer something twice a year versus 26 times a year, or 12 times a year or six times a year. So and then the other important thing is, we’ve compacted the lifecycle management, so all the indications, PGPA, nasal polyps, et cetera, arriving within two years of launch, in contrast to Nucala, with the exception of COP, in contrast to Nucala, which is multi, you know six-plus years.
So quite exciting. In terms of Blenrep, we will present some interesting data at ASCO. As you know, haematologists, oncologists are very comfortable managing toxicity. I think the main question that struck them was around the appropriate dose and the scheduling. We had a lot more insight from that from DREAMM-7 and DREAMM-8, and also some of the Phase 4 work we have done. No doubt we will cover that in more depth, but I think we have a different picture, and then also helpfully the first-line with the EMRD shift with the FDA is also helpful in terms of lifecycle management with Blenrep and compression of launch timeframes.
