Adam Waldman: Yes. I mean we think that for BRIUMVI, there is a good economic story in advance of ASP, but even when we have ASP, we feel good about where we are with the pricing strategy and how physicians will be reimbursed. So in the early stage, I’m trying to understand your question about the ASP €“ not that I’m aware of that there would be a in advance of ASP, there would be an economic advantage.
Prakhar Agrawal: Okay. And on the €“ of the patients who have been treated so far, fully recognizing it’s only four weeks, if you could provide more details on the profile of these patients, are these treatment naïve or mostly switching patients? And it seems that you’re seeing some switches from OCREVUS, but any color you could provide would be helpful.
Adam Waldman: Mike, you want me to take that question?
Michael Weiss: Yes. Go ahead.
Adam Waldman: Okay. Yes. We’re seeing both, right? We’re seeing some switches from CD20. We’re seeing switches from Tysabri, we’re seeing newly diagnosed so we’re seeing an array of patient types at this point. But it’s of course, still early, but we’re encouraged that we’re seeing all types of patients come up.
Prakhar Agrawal: Okay. Thank you very much.
Operator: Thank you. We take a next question from the line of Mayank Mamtani with B. Riley Securities. Please go ahead.
Sahil Kazmi: Hi, good morning, team. This is Sahil Kazmi on for Mayank. Thanks for the really comprehensive update here, and congrats on the early launch metrics. Just one question, I know there’s a switching study that’s going to get started here in the background. Can you also help us understand what might be sort of the internal decision tree to consider investing behind higher dose subcutaneous or perhaps even expanding into the primary setting?
Michael Weiss: Sure. So higher dose subcu, sounds like things that our competitors are doing to try to compete with us and primary progressive, okay. So like higher dose, we certainly don’t need a higher dose. I think it’s very clear to us that our competitor has chosen to a higher dose study to try to compete with our more efficient glycoengineered anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody. So there’s nothing for us to do there. We’re already in theory the highest dose because of our ability to deplete these cells at the most efficient rate. So I don’t see any reason we’d want to do that. I think their efforts in that area are fantastic for us. I think it shows, one, the insight that shows me whether it’s true or not is that they believe that our data probably is better than theirs, and they need a higher dose to try to compete in a way that can compare to what we’ve seen in our clinical trials.
Again in a cross-trial comparison, our ARR is just significantly lower, and I think that’s what they’re trying to go for. So we’ll see what €“ how that turns out for them. But I think that’ll be a extremely long infusion. And then subcu from that standpoint, we feel that the subcu competition is in the main part is not our business model, right? So if we have €“ there’s two markets here, right? I think it’s pretty clear the two markets have developed. Some patients do want to do a subcu, and for those patients right now, there’s only one option but it appears that the other IV drug is looking to turn that into a subcu to compete in that portion of the market. So it sounds like they’re going to have an IV competitor to us, and they’re going to have a subcu to the subcu product.
