Mark Foley: Thanks, Stacy. So, on the DAXXIFY supply, so yes, that is true that for some of the accounts that we are circling back up with that already have product on the shelf where they paid higher prices. We’re partnered with those accounts to figure out how we can work through that inventory, get them to price it to the patients in line with their conventional toxins to get more experience and to make that an easier switch discussion. And so that is taking some time. And as you can imagine, if they have product on the shelf, then kind of figuring out what that engagement plan is, what the strategy is to pull it through and how to do that. And that’s why we said previously that that’s the target and the focus is to go back to these accounts, because they do have experience, their staff’s been on boarded.
They’ve gone through the messaging side of it. And so that is an ongoing focus of the reps in addition to onboarding new accounts. And for those that have already worked through product to make sure that they’ve implemented the new messaging. In terms of the KOLs and the consumer awareness, listen, we’ve been supporting the brand kind of more on the digital side of it. But our view is that in this early phase of launch and having such a small number of DAXXIFY accounts, we want to be thoughtful about the spend that has good ROI. So if we do nothing but activate consumers and they go into practices that don’t have DAXXI and haven’t been trained on DAXXI, then it’s not a good use of our resources and our time. So a lot of our focus and effort are focused on kind of in-office practice conversion materials.
And increasingly, we’re looking at ways that we can better support those accounts that have DAXXIFY, so that we can amplify their voice and drive more consumers into practices that have DAXXIFY on board. And that will be a continued area of focus. But I think you should expect in the near term, it’s going to be more targeted and linked to those accounts that we have a relationship with versus just broad based DTC. And then lastly, your question on the overall competitive market. To your point there’s a couple of new entrants out there. You’ve got another sort of Korean toxin that’s looking to come into the market depending on what happens with their PDUFA date. We believe that they’ll compete effectively in the short acting category. And so, I would say that that probably has less of an impact on us and perhaps more of an impact on others.
And then there’s QM-1114 that’s out there that’s got a long acting liquid formulation. We think actually having more awareness in the market about the importance of duration and long acting makes sense and will be helpful. They’ve received a CRL, so it’s a TBD in terms of kind of what their next steps are, what their path is. But we continue to see a very robust market that continues to grow. And based on where we are in our launch evolution and journey, we continue to feel that we’ve got plenty of room to run.
Stacy Ku: Thank you. Very helpful.
Mark Foley: Thank you.
Operator: Our next question comes from Annabel Samimy with Stifel. Your line is open.
Annabel Samimy: Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. Just following on your communication strategy with injectors about the pricing strategy, it doesn’t seem like all are aware of it. So do you have a sense how many accounts you’ve been able to double back on and how many you have left? What percent of your former accounts have you doubled back on? And again, how has it changed adoption of the new accounts? And then secondly, at the R&D day, you had several early adopting injectors that sort of adapted to the DAXXIFY profile and started getting more optimal responses. Where do you feel you are in that process with other injectors and adopters? And have newer adopters been having different experiences than the original adopters just with word of mouth and I guess, maybe peer-to-peer? So maybe you can just comment on that as well.
Mark Foley: So I think, Annabel, it’s hard to really know what percent of those that we’ve onboarded and that have tried DAXXI that we’ve successfully introduced a new pricing program and that have re-engaged. I think it’s going to vary by territory and probably by rep on that side of it. I would like to hope that most of them are aware and that if they aren’t, then it’ll be a near-time priority for the field force. So it’s hard to know, but that is a priority and that’s obviously where we think the greatest return is going to be in the near term. In terms of where we are in terms of onboarding new accounts that don’t have a DAX, that don’t have a DAXXIFY experience. So far, and it’s early, I think that that onboarding process is more streamlined because that messaging is very crisp.
It’s easy to understand. I think it’s easier for when we talk about practice integration, how do the people in the staff talk about it? It’s a very different switch discussion if you’re saying, listen, I’ve got a product that has these attributes and features, but I’m going to offer it to you at a price that’s in line with what you’re used to paying. I think that that is much easier and we’ve heard that from the practices that that talk track makes a ton of sense. So again, while it’s early, we like what we’re seeing. We talked about in our prepared remarks the percentage of revenue made up from reordering accounts and the increase in the number of vials that we saw in a quarter-over-quarter basis. So again, we continue to have high confidence based on the ongoing discussions that we’re having with existing and potential new customers about this change and the excitement about really trying and experiencing DAXXI.
Annabel Samimy: Okay. And if I could just have a follow-up on the therapeutic side. I mean, I guess, how should we think about the adoption curve? I know initially you’re doing this selective training of physicians, but barring reimbursement delays, which I don’t think you should have any with the J-Code, which is the schedules are pretty established. Do you think that there could be less hesitation for physicians to use this given that it’s not so much of an aesthetics or an art on someone’s face as opposed to a real clinical outcome that patients can feel? So how do you think that adoption curve would sort of compare to what you see in aesthetics adoption?
Dustin Sjuts: Thanks, Annabelle. This is Dustin. I think we thought a lot about that in terms of adoption curves and you see so many different things that go into it on the aesthetic side. I think you do see some of those things in the therapeutic side, but a little bit less as it relates to kind of different toggles in that journey. I think it’ll determine how quickly our reps can get into those offices, how they can work them through, as you know, getting the prior authorization, all bonds need prior authorization regardless of coverage. And so, I think it’ll just be how quickly does that uptake. The early providers in our PrevU program have been excited to use it. They’re using on a variety of different patients. So we anticipate when we get our field force hired, others will be able to drive that.
