So with respect to valbenazine, what made us encouraged about valbenazine and interested in going into this program is a combination of three different pieces of background. The first was obviously in the context of our tardive dyskinesia program. And now with the use of INGREZZA in the marketplace in treatment of tardive dyskinesia, we have a huge database of information for patients who have received antipsychotics and valbenazine INGREZZA treatment together, and we’re very confident in the safety and tolerability of that. In addition, we have preclinical data that was generated that shows the addition of valbenazine to antipsychotic background treatment in animal models results in a synergistic effect. We obviously do not have Phase II data for the combination in the clinic.
But because of the challenges in psychiatry trials with failed trials and inappropriate readouts, we elected to go directly into fully powered pivotal trials. And as a result, that’s what we’re currently implementing, and we look forward to reading out data from the first of those studies at the end of next year.
Jeff Hung: Thank you.
Operator: We will take our next question from Myles Minter with William Blair. Your line is open.
Myles Minter: Hi. Just on the CTA for 570 to M1/M4 dual agonist here. Are you running that Phase I with any sort of anticholinergic components to mask, nausea and vomiting that’s been seen with that mechanism, just obviously referring to the Xanomeline [ph] experience at Eli Lilly. So just curious as to whether there’s an additive compound in that CTA? Thanks.
Eiry Roberts: Yes. I mean I don’t want to comment too much on the specifics of the design of the Phase I program, but just by background, the reasoning for the Xanomeline requirement of additional anticholinergics, at least as I understand it, is because of the peripheral side effect profile seemless normally, which is thought to be predominantly due to M2, M3 and the anticholinergic then knock out that peripheral effect. We have highly selective centrally penetrant agonists. And as such, we are developing them in that fashion. So I think I’ll probably just leave it at that.
Operator: We’ll take our next question from Danielle Brill with Raymond James. Your line is open.
Danielle Brill: Hi, good morning. Thanks for the question. I’m curious, I believe your competitor is also developing their CRF1 antagonist for PCOS. Is this an indication of strategic interest for you and curious why or why not? Thanks so much.
Kevin Gorman: Actually, not at this time. We’re following their data. But at this point, that’s – PCOS is not an indication that we’re following upon.
Operator: We will take our next question from Evan Seigerman with BMO. Your line is open.
Evan Seigerman: Hi, guys. Thank you so much for taking my question. I’d love to hear a little more about the expansion of INGREZZA into the long-term care market. We didn’t hear much about it. And I know that’s a unique setting. So maybe just some more on that and how that could help support growth this year or next year? Thank you.
Kevin Gorman: So we’re excited about the opportunity to help more patients in long-term care. This is a segment that we were attracted to at the time of launch with INGREZZA back in 2017, but we didn’t have the capacity to take that on, on top of outpatient psychiatry, community mental health and outpatient neurology. And so last year, actually, just a little over a year ago, we launched our efforts into long-term care with a dedicated team. What we’ve seen so far is a lot of really good progress and strong growth. We estimate that about 10% to 15% of the total TD population resides in various residential care facilities. And so it’s early days yet in terms of that business segment. Our neurology and our psychiatry segments are more established than LTC. But all signs are positive, and we continue to be very optimistic about the opportunity there going forward.
