The same with V617F, a target that many have pursued for a long time. And again, credit to our research group for coming up with, as Pablo pointed out, a very novel way of targeting the mutation in the JH2 domain. And then again, the idea would be to eliminate the clone and disease modified, and this is a bigger population. It’s about 50% of MF, 60% of ET and 95% plus of polycythemia vera. So for the first time now, we’ve been able to show you that I mean we’ve come up with a target in PV where it’s an area where we haven’t been able yet to give you anything new beyond Rux. So we’re very excited about that. Again, it’s early. We have to get the IND across the finish line and get into the clinic, but it’s a superb science and would be a very different way of thinking about those entities.
So thanks for the question.
Operator: Thank you. Next question is coming from Jay Olson from Oppenheimer. Your line is now live.
Unidentified Analyst: Hi. This is [indiscernible] for Jay. Thanks for taking the question. So just a follow on the prior question, [JAK2V617F] mutation. I’m just wondering you are thinking about the monotherapy versus combination approach going forward. And just on the slide, it seems like the CALR mutations and the V617F mutations are mutually exclusive. So I just want to confirm if that’s correct. And just a quick question on Opzelura. I wondering if you can talk about the split between AD and vitiligo in 3Q, that would be great? Thank you.
Pablo Cagnoni: So this is Pablo. Let me take the first part of the question. So as Steven mentioned and I explained in my remarks, it’s early days for both programs. I think that when you start thinking about how to position them and the potential combination with Jakafi, I think we need to get through a few cohorts in the Phase I studies, understand the profile of these two new medicines, and then we’ll start building a combination strategy. I think potentially that could be the case, particularly as you start thinking about symptom resolution with Jakafi early in the treatment paradigm and then using either V617F or the mutant CALR antibody to then try to eliminate the clone and potentially transform the outcomes in these diseases.
The second part of your question, I think, was related to whether these are mutually exclusive and they are. And that’s actually an important point in understanding how to position them in the future. And then I think you had a question about AD, which I’ll pass over to Barry.
Barry Flannelly: Yes, [indiscernible] I didn’t really hear you. So AD versus vitiligo, what are you trying to say. What is the script volume?
Unidentified Analyst: Yes, that’s script split between AD and vitiligo. Thank you.
Barry Flannelly: Sure. Currently, it’s about 60-40. So 60%, 80%, 40% vitiligo. Thanks.
Operator: Thank you. Next question is coming from Reni Benjamin from JMP Securities. Your line is now live.
Reni Benjamin: Hey. Good morning, guys. Thanks for taking the questions. Maybe for Steven. So, can you talk a little bit about how you view the competitive landscape in PN and HS? And could the landscape change prior to your Phase III readouts? Or are you the clear sort of market leader in both indications? And I guess, just as a second sort of follow-up question maybe for Herve. You guys are generating significant cash flow. You have a strong balance sheet. The pipeline is largely ignored by investors and is significantly down. Can you talk maybe a little bit about the process that you might be going through to maybe switch gears, maybe acquire an entire company platform pipeline and all versus striking kind of one-off product collaboration agreements?
Steven Stein: I’ll start and then hand it over to Steven. So let me remind you povorcitinib is a oral agent. In both entities, you’re talking about are becoming very interesting in terms of the science, a lot of targeting with different modalities, but they’re mostly intravenous IV large molecules that target things like IL-17. So a very specific biology, whereas in these entities, there’s more broad biology, and that’s why we think JAK may be important here both in PN and HS. An oral agent, now we’ve shown what we think is very strong proof-of-concept data in both entities. HS, we have ongoing two Phase IIIs and PN will be proceeding there. Sure, the landscape can always change. As part of any assessment we do, we look at the competitive landscape and what may occur. But in terms of an oral agent, we think that’s the big differentiator here, and then I’ll hand it over to the second part of your question.
Herve Hoppenot: So your question about the way are we sort of turning into a new direction regarding the use of cash. And the answer is we are still continuing to look at opportunities outside of the company. We are still investing in our pipeline. But as you have noticed, our growth of the revenue continues to be faster, higher than the growth of our expenses. So we continue to generate leverage and we continue to have an increasing cash flow quarter after quarter. And we are looking at opportunities to continue to add to the growth of the corporation in the year, 2025 to 2030. So it’s a relatively broad target. Obviously, valuations have been fluctuating a lot in the past months, and it’s creating opportunities that we are looking at.
So there is a clear willingness for the right price to add new products that would be fitting with our portfolio, if we can. We could do it through partnership or acquisition. In fact, we think both would be appropriate, and it’s a financial question or it’s a question of willingness to go one route or the other, but we could do it either way.
Operator: Thank you. Next question is coming from Derek Archila from Wells Fargo. Your line is now live.
Unidentified Analyst: Good morning. This is [indiscernible] for Derek. Thanks for taking our question. A quick one from us. Can you provide some color on the pace of the pipeline development and whether it will be timely enough to offset Jakafi by laws of exclusivity? Thanks.
