Lars Fruergaard Jørgensen: Thank you, Camilla. Thank you, Martin. It’s a clear sign of our commitment to raising the innovation height also in a classical area. The market for the degeneration of Novo Nordisk. We’re still inviting in insulin and think we can drive tremendous value for patients and physicians here still 100 years in. Thank you, Richard. Next question, please.
Operator: Thank you. We will now take the next question. It comes from the line of Richard Vosser from JPMorgan. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Richard Vosser: Hi, thanks for taking my questions. First question, just thinking on Ozempic trends and how you see those going forward. I think Q3, you were saying 40% of patients were naive to diabetes treatment of the new patients going on Ozempic. How are you seeing the Wegovy relaunch impact that? And how do you see sort of that Ozempic situation developing throughout this year with Wegovy back into to full supply? Do you see that slowing down significantly because of Wegovy? And then the second question. Just going back to the reimbursement and payers. Obviously, very good getting 40 million patients. How are the payers treating the patients may be in the second, maybe third year of treatment if patients get that long. If they reach levels of normal BMI or lose significant amounts of weight, do payers then say, well, that’s brilliant, you’re back to normal and to come off the drug? Or how are they treating that in your reimbursement discussions? Thanks very much.
Lars Fruergaard Jørgensen: Thank you, Richard. First, Camilla, on the Ozempic trends after Wegovy is in the market, then Doug, you can talk a bit through payers with a U.S. perspective.
Camilla Sylvest: Yes. So on Ozempic, we see a continued increase. We see — we are back to TRx and NBRx leadership. When it comes to how much of the Wegovy sourcing that is from diabetes, then we can say that the uplift in the Wegovy trends in the U.S. is basically from primarily the 0.25 the starter dose. And that basically means that these are patients that are new to GLP-1 treatment. Of course, looking forward, that means that we expect that there is a potential for both of these two classes to coexist and to continue increasing as we see both unexploited potential for GLP-1 treatment in diabetes as well as in obesity.
Lars Fruergaard Jørgensen: Doug, on the payer’s perspective on multiple years of treatment.
Doug Langa: Yes, Richard, thank you. I think it’s important to note that we’re pleased with the level of access that we have today. Overall, 80% access is something that we’re proud of, and the team has done a nice job. Effective access we’ve been hard at work at. As you know, this requires opt-ins. But again, we’re pleased with the overall 40 million lives that can have access. And how the parents are treating this. There’s no stopping roles in place today. And I think the payers recognize that this is a chronic treatment, and that’s important for not only stakeholders, payers, but all the work that we’re doing is to realize this as a serious chronic disease, and it’s a chronic disease that needs long-term treatment.
Lars Fruergaard Jørgensen: Thank you, Camilla. Thank you, Doug. Thank you, Richard. Next question, please.
Operator: Thank you. We will now take the next question. It comes from the line of Michael Leuchten from UBS. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Michael Leuchten: Thank you. Two questions, please. Michael Leuchten from UBS. One, if I look at the value of the volume for Ozempic and Rybelsus in the U.S., there seem to be some trend changes in Q4, maybe Ozempic also in Q3. Is that a fair reflection of the competitive rebating environment? Or should we not overinterpret those trends as we think about the value to volume looking into 2023? And then a question for Martin. SELECT isn’t really something you talk about actively anymore. It only really comes up in Q&A. Is that because in your mind, the relevance has taken a step back given it didn’t stop at the interim? And we’re maybe on track for the 17% risk reduction, which may not be as meaningful as maybe a 25% would have been? Or is there another reason why you don’t mention it as much more as you have in the past? Thank you.
Lars Fruergaard Jørgensen: Thank you, Michael. So first, Karsten, on the value versus volume dynamics for GLP-1.
Karsten Munk Knudsen: Yes. So Michael, first of all, to your Q4 questions versus ’22 or then there are no changes vis-Ã -vis ’22. So as you know, normally, then for ’24 — then we give the lag of scripts, then there will be true-ups normally in Q4 that can impact the value to volume equation. So I think the more appropriate way to look at it is for the full-year. And then I’d say on top of that, given the supply situation on Ozempic, there might be also some noise in that calculation from changes in inventory levels on Ozempic specifically. From there, moving into 2023, while not guiding for value and volume for ’23, then I’d say the dynamics remain the same between ’22 and ’23.
Lars Fruergaard Jørgensen: Thank you, Karsten. And Martin, on SELECT, why are you not talking about SELECT?
Martin Holst Lange: So first of all, we are still very excited and very confident about SELECT issue is obviously that we have no results to share. We have no data to share. And therefore, the only thing I can call out, which hopefully you also saw in my part of the presentation is that we are looking very much forward to the data coming out around mid-2023. And that will be incredibly exciting. So we still think SELECT is very important and very exciting.
Lars Fruergaard Jørgensen: Thank you. That’s very clear. Thank you, Michael. Next question, please.
Operator: Thank you. We will now take the next question. It comes from the line of Keyur Parekh from Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
Keyur Parekh: All right. Thank you. Hopefully, you can hear me okay. Two separate lines of questioning, please. The first one on CapEx. As the 2022 Capital Markets Day, your slides implied CapEx for 2025 to be between kind of DKK 10 billion and DKK 15 billion. What you’re guiding to today implies CapEx close to DKK 25 billion to DKK 30 billion in 2025. So just wondering if you can give us a sense for kind of how much of that doubling of CapEx is attributable to your perception of higher demand for the existing products. So B2B kind of Rybelsus or GLP-1 diabetes products versus how much of this is with a view to ensuring supply for the non-diabetes, non-obesity product as that pipeline emerges over the course of the next kind of two to three years?
So that’s kind of question number one. And then separately kind of coming back to icodec. Camilla, would love your thoughts on how you think ONWARDS 1 and ONWARDS 6 the extension data changes, if at all, the commercial positioning kind of for this molecule from your perspective. Does this make it a little bit more of an international product compared to a U.S. product given the convenience at play here? Or do you still think there exists room for you to have differential pricing for this molecule in the U.S. given the extension data? Thank you.
Lars Fruergaard Jørgensen: Thank you, Keyur. Two very clear questions. So first, Karsten, on CapEx versus what we said at Capital Markets Day and a perspective on existing products, new areas and then Camilla, you can talk to the icodec, say commercial opportunity?
Karsten Munk Knudsen: Yes, thank you, Lars. So CapEx, of course quite a significant step-up compared at our Capital Markets Day and again, that’s what we are forward-looking statements. So the world has a tendency to change these days more than usual. I would say this step-up in CapEx to me, comes on a very positive background. I can, unfortunately, not to kind of separate how much is what because we have both facing and a different share platform. So it’s a little bit trying to separate hot and cold water, unfortunately, Keyur. But I would say that the main drivers to it is, first of all, a stronger volume uptick than what we had built into our initial CapEx modeling clearly and the stronger volume uptick impacts both on the API side of our current marketed products as well as the fill/finish that we’re scaling more so than the initiative plans.
And then as to the pipeline, I’d say there are two main drivers to step-up. And you can say in a historic perspective, where we were like, call it, between 5% and 10% CapEx to sales and now we are more in the, call it, between 10% and 15% CapEx to sales ratio towards 25%, the delta is that historically, it was injectable peptide-based CapEx investments we’re doing. And we continue to do that through the volume scaling I just spoke about. But on top of that, we are building to cater for the all platform that just requires significantly higher amounts of API, whether it’s for Rybelsus or semi obesity or some of the earlier oral compounds. As you know, we have all accretion in Phase 1 and we have all GLP-1 also. So clearly, for the all platform and then for the nonprotein peptide platforms, I would say we’re looking at — and what are we doing to cater for pipeline assets like my MACE and Ziltivekimab and our ATTI as well which is on an antibody platform.
So that’s where we’re looking at also expanding our capacity on the monoclonal antibody side. So I hope that provides a little bit of color, but not fully able to separate the hot and the cold water.
Lars Fruergaard Jørgensen: Thank you, Karsten. Exciting pipeline line leads to need for CapEx. So Camilla, how excited are you on icodec based on the recent data?
Camilla Sylvest: Yes, thank you, Lars. And as we just discussed before, we remain very confident in the efficacy and safety profile of icodec that given as a once-weekly insulin has the potential to become standard of care for people with Type 2 diabetes. And to your question, this has not changed our perspective in terms of a global rollout of icodec. We remain equally confident in the U.S. and in the Rest of the World for how this can help people with Type 2 diabetes. And keep in mind that the potential of this is that the basal segment approximately includes 30 million patients with a value of around $8 billion. So that’s a place where we today have a market share in the ballpark of one-third. So there’s ample potential to increase that.
Lars Fruergaard Jørgensen: Thank you, Camilla. Thank you, Keyur. Next question, please.
Operator: Thank you. We will now take the next question. It comes from the line of Simon Baker from Redburn. Please go ahead. Your line is open.
