Mark Purcell: Yeah. Thank you. It’s Mark Purcell from Morgan Stanley. Thanks for taking my question. On Iptacopan, first, could you help us understand, when you say the nine-month analysis could potentially support US subpart H filing, how should we think about the probability of moving forward at that point versus, obviously, out of 2025 or so and slowing progression of IgAN before you can approach the FDA with your package? And then related to that, obviously, a much bigger population in IgAN versus PNH and C3G, et cetera, should we think about sub-population of the 185,000 patients you estimate with IgAN, which would be a target hill, or would you launch this as a completely separate brand? I’m trying to think about what Novartis’ broad ambitions might be to build out a portfolio of primary care and rare renal assets given your commercial capabilities across the platform.
Vasant Narasimhan: Yeah. Thanks, Mark. So first on the endpoint for IgAN. We saw in the Phase 2 data, Phase 2b data, I think reduction in proteinuria across the very statistical analysis that we’ve done. And that’s the basis for us designing the Phase 3 study. So we feel good that if we hit the required slope of reduction that we target that, that would allow us to file with the FDA. Though I imagine it will also come down to the totality of the data. But certainly, our base case is that if we hit the primary end point on proteinuria that should give us the basis to file. And then, of course, we would look at eGFR and other endpoints in 2025 that would be more meaningful after further follow-up. Broadly speaking, for our factor Technical Difficulty] so focus on PNH, C3G, aHUS, IC-MPGN, Cold Agglutinin Disease and the related spectrum of illnesses, when we’re in a more common illness like IgA nephropathy, our focus is on more severe patients to be able to maintain the ultra rare pricing.
We do have follow-on factor B inhibitors that we plan to take forward in broader indications. You’ll know that we do have a program for Iptacopan evaluated in geographic atrophy and related retinal diseases. And if successful, we would actually use the backup compound for those broad indications, and that’s how we’re thinking about splitting out across the whole factor B enterprise. Thank you. Next question, operator.
Operator: Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Richard Parkes, BNP Paribas. Please, go ahead. Your line is open.
Richard Parkes: Hi. Thank you very much for taking my question. It’s just another one on Pluvicto. You’ve outlined obviously, you’ll have manufacturing capacity to allow you to address the majority of the PSMAfore population by 2024. Could you talk about the other hurdles and limitations on your ability to penetrate that population, including referral patents, proportion of patients care in the community and access to nuclear medicine facility, just so that you can help us scope out the opportunity? Thank you.
Vasant Narasimhan: Yes. Richard, what we’ve seen thus far is, there’s about 500 facilities we believe we would need to be able to provide Pluvicto, at least in the US market, to reach the demand — the potential patient population across the three indications that we have. We’re able to — we’re currently servicing a little over 200 of them, and we expect that to expand over time. I think what’s going to be the next challenge, because the demand, as we’ve noted throughout the call, are much higher than we expected, and I think folks on the call expected, frankly, is actually having the centers have enough infusion chairs to be able to provide the therapy to enough patients. So that’s the next constraint beyond once we relieve our supply constraint later in the middle of this year to then work with the centers to have a better estimate of what the number of patients they think they will need to provide radioligand therapy to a day and ensure they have adequate chair or bed capacity to be able to do that.
Because I think that will be, as we get into broader and broader patient populations, that will be the next constraint we’ll have to then work through. There seems to be a lot of enthusiasm in the urology and nuclear medicine community to do that, so I expect it will happen. But that’s something we’re going to have to work through over the coming quarters. Next question? And this is the last question. I think its Steve. Steve?
Operator: Thank you. Just opening Steve’s line. Stephen, your line is open.
Stephen Scala: Hi. I assume you’re calling on Steve Scala. So I’m just wondering, what is your specific assumption for the profile of Merck’s oral PCSK9, for which data is coming very near-term, in terms of both its LDL lowering and its safety. I assume your view is very cautious, which supports your high enthusiasm for Leqvio, but what role do you think an oral PCSK9 ultimately could have in this marketplace? Thank you.
