Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Roivant’s First Quarter 2023 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speakers’ presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] Please note that today’s conference is being recorded. I will now hand the conference over to your speaker host today, Stephanie Lee. Please go ahead.

Good morning, and thanks for joining today’s call to review Roivant’s financial results for the company’s first quarter ended June 30, 2023. I’m Stephanie Lee with Roivant. Presenting today, we have Matt Gline, CEO of Roivant and Mayukh Sukhatme, President and Chief Investment Officer for Roivant. For those dialing in via conference call, you can find the slides being presented today as well as the press release announcing these updates on our IR website at www.investors.roivant.com. We’ll also be providing the current slide numbers as we present to help you follow a along. I’d like to remind you that we’ll be making certain forward-looking statements during today’s presentation. We strongly encourage you to review the information that we filed with the SEC for more information regarding these forward-looking statements and related risks and uncertainties. And with that, I’ll turn it over to Matt.

Thank you, Stephanie, and thank you, everybody, for joining this morning and for listening. It’s only been a short – actually 6 weeks since our last call, as our last call was for the K. So comparatively a little bit tougher updates, but an exciting – certainly an exciting quarter ended June 30 and a lot to talk about today. I’m going to give just a brief – a brief sort of update on the state of the business as well as an update on the quarter and VTAMA sales. And then actually, what we’re going to spend the bulk of time on today is we’ve been getting more questions about brepocitinib and we’ve actually got some new data there in Crohn’s disease. So we’re going to share that and talk through again a reminder of sort of how we’re thinking about that program as we approach the lupus data in the back half of the year and more beyond. And so with that, I’m going to get started just starting on Page 5. As an overall reminder, we continue to be pleased with the progress we’ve made in the business. During the 6/30 quarter, we completed our tenth consecutive positive Phase III trial that was the during – during 1 study, the second study of VTAMA which we continue to be proud of that track record, which has now led to 6 FDA-approved products across Roivant and the Sumitomo collaboration. As of 6/30, we had just under $1.5 billion in cash on the balance sheet. Which, as we’ve guided before, comfortably funds us into the second half of 2025 with a lot of clinical data, both generated recently and even more coming in the near future. And we’re very proud of our pipeline at this point. We have –…

Yes. Thanks, Matt. Yes – so yes, please turn to Slide 13. So as Matt said, I want to take the opportunity to talk a little bit about one of, I think, what I consider one of the sleeping giants within our portfolio. To the extent that brepocitinib is going to get some notice for investors, I think it’s mostly through the lens of being a pivotal study catalyst for Roivant by the end of this year. And while that is true, we do have the lupus data later this year. I think the lupus story is just a small part of what we’re trying to build with brepocitinib. And so I want to go through that story of fresh here today, the punch line, from my perspective, is don’t sweat on brepocitinib. So put simply, brepocitinib is a unique, highly, highly active dual inhibitor of both TYK2 and JAK1 that has already shown spectacular efficacy in a broad range of auto immune diseases. So as Matt said, we’re reporting here for the first time the sixth consecutive positive Phase II study for brepocitinib this time in Crohn’s disease, which is a study that is being run by Pfizer and [indiscernible] expense. And that adds to the string of positive Phase II studies already reported, now covering as you see here on the slide, psoriasis, alopecia, toric arthritis, ulcerative colitis, hidradenitis to pertiva and nacho disease. And we’ll go through the rest of the material on this slide in greater detail later, but we think that we really have the potential to become the leading oral therapy and loop given the dual inhibition of TYK2 and JAK1 should provide greater efficacy than inhibition of either one alone. That is a large global study that is designed to serve as 1…

Thanks, May. Appreciate it. And obviously, thank you for that a deep dive into the program. some questions we’ve added, but I also just want to set people up for the months and frankly, years ahead with it. So looking forward to more there. I’m going to go very quickly through the rest here and then open up for Q&A in just a minute or two. Starting with – on Slides 34 and 35. While we’re not going to spend any time today on the C18 data, it occurred to me as we were finalizing this presentation, the June 30 quarter was the quarter in which we had generated the 36-week maintenance data that it felt – it felt we were not to at least add to that extraordinary data set. So we’ve had a couple of calls on that topic so far. The TL1A program is an incredibly exciting opportunity. And we continue to look at the state and find new things to like about it, including the continued improvement into 56 weeks and some of the things that set us up really well for the Phase III program. So more on that to come. As a reminder, on Slide 36, we are now underway, including first patient dose with our Phase II study in Crohn’s. The goal here is to get, as I’ve said before, dose ranging out of the way prior to beginning Phase III in a way where when we look at all of these time lines and stacking together, we think we still have an opportunity to be effectively first-in-class in Crohn’s disease by going quickly from this study – into a Phase III study in Crohn’s. So we’re very excited about the opportunity for TL1A in Crohn’s in addition to UC and look forward…

[Operator Instructions] Now, first question coming from the line of Brian Chen with JPMorgan. Your line is open.

Hey, guys, thanks for taking my question this morning and walk through on Brepo. Maybe first on Brepo. Given what we saw from other JAKs in SLE specifically, – how confident are you that Brepo can perform better than Ducros specifically in SLE. Is there anything that you would want to flag from the baseline characteristics in the ongoing Phase II design to ensure that you can show the differentiation and also make sure the placebo rate low. Then I have a follow-up.

Yes. Thanks, Brian. And maybe I’ll take one second to that question and then also hand it over to Mayukh, to see if he’s got further comments. Look, I think in terms of the confidence in SLA, and I think you heard Mayukh said, on the one hand, I think there’s a strong biological rationale that hitting both TYK2 and JAK1 should provide a meaningful benefit. And so I think that’s – that’s an important point. And then I think the second important point is understanding the bar correctly. And I think if you look closely at the Duke data, look, I’m not going to say Duke is not an impressive agent. But really, I think the way to read that data is probably sort of mid-teens blended efficacy. And I think if you look at the 3-milligram dose where they showed something more impressive in that I think there was a pretty significant sort of patient population imbalance that suggests to us that the mid-teens is really the bar to beat. As far as the baseline characteristics, I think, first of all, as a reminder, this is a study that Pfizer designed and run. We think it’s a pretty well-designed study, and we’ve been watching it closely. There were certain things that we didn’t control. And as Mayukh mentioned, with lupus is a scary indication for trial execution. But we feel, overall, pretty good. And I think that our study design, for example, was designed to try and flag some more severe baseline criteria, which has historically correlated with success, but we’ll obviously see how that plays out later this fall. Mayukh anything to add to that?

No, no. Not really so Matt, I think you nailed all the points or to make.

And maybe just one more follow-up on Immunovant 1402 data coming up next next month. Just to prep us for the top line coming up. Can you walk us through how we should gauge the profile at top line in terms of one IgG supression compared to etokimab and Far and more importantly, the impact on albumin and LTL, given the potential variability in the LDL assay.

Yes thanks, Brian. Great question. Obviously, when we’re getting a lot right now, and I’m sure Immunovant getting a lot too. I think Immunovant spoken a fair amount on this point publicly. I think the – on IgG suppression Look, we believe we have an equivalently potent molecule here, and we’d like to see equivalently deep IgG suppression as a short answer. Remember, comparing apples-to-apples versus as close as we’ve got equivalent time points and things like that. But in general, I think we’d like to see really the same level of deep energy suppression and certainly, we’d like to feel like we’re going to be able to supress ITG comfortably deeper than efgartigimod can. So that’s on the IgG suppression points. On albumin and LDL, obviously, there’s a lot of speculation and discussion on this point. The facts are that the variability of the albumin assay is about 5% and the variability of the LDL assay is 10-plus percent. And so I think within first fractionation with relatively small studies, you want to be comfortably within both of those smaller is generally better. And my sense is that if the albumin impact in the SAD is relatively modest, that the LDL will follow and because of the variability in the LDL, it will be easier to see – you’ve got a few weeks of compounding data after multiple injections. So I’m mostly looking to the albumin in the SAD data. I haven’t seen really any of this yet, so I can’t say what it’s going to look like, but that’s what I’m keeping my eye out for.

Thanks, Matt. Thanks, Mayukh.

Thank you. [Operator Instructions] And our next question coming from the line of David Risinger with Leerink. Your line is open.

Good morning. Thanks very much, Matt and team, for all the updates. So I have questions for both Matt and Mayukh. Matt, could you provide an update on the evaluation of potential monetization of assets and also provide an update on the pursuit of new product acquisition opportunities. And then I’ll pause and follow up with a question or 2 for Mayukh.

I appreciate it. And I figured we would get some version of that first question. Look, I think we are in a privileged moment in terms of the amount of clinical data we have generated and will generate soon. That data is both deeply informative to our own strategic future and also exciting to potential partners, acquirers and so on. And it’s flattering to be the focus of attention. It’s made me wonder a little bit how exactly public speculation happens. But anyway, flattering. Look, I think the short answer is on the monetization side, we’re value-oriented, and we’re going to have to make these decisions carefully, knowing that a number of our late-stage programs are really rare opportunities with huge potential. And so we don’t take any decision on them in either direction lately with the dollar sums at hand being very large and the unit for patients being very large. Certainly, I wouldn’t expect us to make any decisions of substance on this point until we started to get some of the Immunovant data in just because that’s a pretty important strategic catalyst for us as we think through what the future of Roivant could look like across the rest of our portfolio. On the new opportunity side, I will hand that over to Mayukh actually. But I guess the one thing I’ll say is this has been a phenomenal asset sourcing opportunity environment for us. Obviously, a year ago today, we would not have been talking about PLA. We also wouldn’t have been talking about IMVT-1402. We hope we’ve proven that we see some pretty interesting and unique things and that we can bring them in. And I’ll say we’ve got things on our racket right now. that are just as exciting to me bluntly is anything in our late-stage portfolio. And I hope we can convert some of those. And the next year, we’ll be talking about them as well. But Mayukh, anything you’d add to that?

Not really, Dave. I mean, look, I think that this is – as Matt said, this has got a our sort of normal course of business to be out there looking for new and high-value things. I think that work is ongoing. I feel really good about, as Matt said, things that are rated. Stay tuned.

And then just a follow-up. So Mayukh, thanks for providing the comprehensive vision for brepocitinib. Could you discuss the decision not to pursue a number of indications despite compelling results, including Crohn’s and then if you could also discuss Sotyktu’s inverse dose response in SLE and whether there are any potential implications for Brepo in SLE or no?

Sorry, I missed just the last part of that question, Dave.

So yes. So on the last part, the slide shows an inverse dose response for Sotyktu-NSLE. So as the dosing went up for Sotyktu, the efficacy went down – just wanted to see if you had any comments on that and whether there may or may not be implications for REPO as a dual agent in SLE as it’s dosed up. And as I understand it, you’re testing 15, 30 and 45-milligram doses.

That’s right. Matt, do you want to take the indication question?

Yes, sure. I mean, look, I think, Dave, it comes down to – and this was sort of the inherent thesis in REPO as well. I think at the moment that we acquired Replfrom-Pfizer, it was sort of just in the thick of the sort of turning point on JAK inhibitors because of labeling. And I think our view has been in the face of very compelling data, as you point out, in Crohn’s and a number of these other indications, that the competitive landscape there is such that the JAK labeling may be a disadvantage difficult to develop through. I think if you take Crohn’s, for example, I think that’s an interesting question in the sense that clearly, as we continue to study RINVOQ in IBD pretty aggressively and also the Aster TYK2 have struggled a little bit there. So I think we’ll get some more data on that later. I think we’ll continue to reevaluate those questions. That said, I’d say the other thing about our view is, I think with the data that, frankly, the TL1A class is putting out in IBD, we’re not sure exactly where Jack will fit in the future treatment paradigm understanding the obvious benefits of being oral. But anyway, look, I think the affirmative bet we’re making here is that orphan indications where the Jack liabilities won’t be a problem with the unmet need is highest is sort of the place where it makes the most sense for us to pursue for us to pursue REPO.

Yes. I mean I think just to add to that. Look, I think we’re always going to be, I think, kind of dynamic in our evaluation and really sort of this sort of comes down to you in a certain sense, an embarrassment of riches in terms of just the clinical data set and the breadth of potential indications we can go after. I think as Matt said and articulated on the call, our sort of primary thrust as it were is in the orphan indications for which I think we feel like our ability to separate versus other options as great as the competitive intensity is leased, et cetera, and that certain really allows us to kind of have this specialty rheumatology and in that area for ourselves. And so I think we’ve got a lot of different – different options here. And then I think you conceptualize over the next couple of data sets that we get in both lupus and NIU and the DM coming right at And term you question on Sotyktu. So look, I mean, I think obviously, this is sort of the – the sort of the inherent sort of uncertainty is around just relatively small and point estimates as well as just sort of lupus clinical trial readouts generally. I think that our own view is that there’s not not really likely – the truth is not an inverted dose response in that Sotyktu study. I think there are reasons to believe that in essence this could be like a little bit of a reflection of just like slight imbalances imbalances between the various doses. So for example, we think that the 3-milligram BID on the one that produced sort of highest print head more subjects receiving sort of triple combination standard of care baseline compared to other arms and then the 12-milligram once daily arm had higher dropout rates, et cetera. And ultimately, if you look through sort of Sotyktu just generally, it seems like they’re quite close to saturation at the 3 mgs – there’s not really kind of like a true reason to believe that they’re sort of more juice in there at the higher basis. And then finally, it seems like mid-teens kind of blended across these 3 values – it seems to be consistent with how Bristol themselves seem to be powering a Phase III as well.

Got it. Thanks very much.

Thanks, Dave. I appreciate your questions.

Thank you. And our next question coming from the line of Robyn Karnauskas with Truist Securities. Your line is open.

Hi, guys, and thanks, Mauk, for doing all the work for me on lupus and Brepo, a fantastic presentation. A question on capital allocation. First, just on Brepo. When you think about how – whether it’s spend more on these orphan drug indications, can you just remind us of the Pfizer agreement? And how much they – if there’s anything to contribute and then bigger picture, you talked about making capital decisions after seeing at least initially some of the data from 1402. And you’ve got so many moving parts just this year and next year with many drugs and decisions you’ll have to make. Like can you just walk us through how you’re going to think about that? Would you start thinking about that after sad?And how long would it take you to come up with a game plan for what you’re going to do for Roivant for spend?

Yes. On the first question on repo specifically, the answer is the lupus study itself was very heavily subsidized by Pfizer. So our cost there was a fraction of the total study cost. And that obviously made it an attractive setup for us. The rest of the costs associated with other indications are ours to be or Pfizer does not contribute they’re protected from dilution of their 25% stake up to $1 cap, frankly, relatively similar. The mechanism at Telavance with the GLA program. So in terms of other orphan indications, NIU, DM is all our costs, et cetera. Those are capital allocation isn’t for us the same as any other but SLE, in particular, has been highly subsidized through the end of this current study. If we decided to run another study, that would also be ours to fund. More generally, I guess I probably – in so far as I said, we wouldn’t think about it until we saw the Immunovant data that was probably an overstate. Obviously, we have spent a lot of time thinking about capital and capital decision-making as we explore the opportunity set, and I agree there’s a lot of moving pieces coming. I think that data will be informative. I think the MAD data will be informative. I think we’re going to learn other things from the FcRn field including some RA data from J&J, from our home grade study, et cetera, through the balance of this year. I don’t know that there’s going to be like a single tipping point obvious moments where before which we can’t make any decision and after which we can, I think it’s more of taking the facts as we have them and trying to understand in which direction things swing over the coming months. That said, we have the best version of this problem, I think, in the sense that we just have lots of different options for capitalizing the business going forward. And so I think we’re just – we’re frankly picking on good choices at this point.

Okay, great. Thank you.

Thanks, Robyn. I appreciate the question.

Thank you. And our next question coming from the line of Louise Chen with Cantor. Your line is open.

Hi, thanks for taking my questions here and congratulations on all the progress this quarter. So I wanted to ask you on brepocitinib, one thing people have been asking us is how you think about pricing if the drug is approved? And I know it’s a little bit early, but if you can’t talk about specifics, maybe you could tell us the bookends and how you’re thinking about it and what you might comp it to. And then on TA the reimbursement work you did on psoriasis, how much can that be leveraged to the atopic dermatitis opportunity so that you can move quickly on uptake on that one? And then one more here on brepocitinib. Can you be a little bit more specific on when this year, we’ll see the data? Is it early, mid, early fourth quarter?

Yes. Thanks, Louise. On the 2 repo questions on the timing. I think it’s safe to assume mid- to late fourth quarter is probably the way to think about that. On pricing, I mean, I’ll hand it to Mayukh, but I think my short answer to that question is at this point, there’s a pretty wide breadth of possible indication spaces between SLE and DM and so on. So it’s probably premature, but I’ll hand over to Mayukh.

Yes. I think the punchline is we’re thinking about this principally as sort of a, call it, an orphan drug pricing band given the sort of indication set and sort of what makes sense I think that, that is potentially compatible with pricing and leases as well if efficacy data is really strong.

And then on the meta access question, I think the short answer is yes, that is a lot of that work can be heavily leveraged, and I would expect to be sort of process with payers to be significantly streamlined given that we’re all on formulary. Obviously, there is still work to do. It’s not like it’s instantaneous and automatic but I would expect it to be a faster, more straightforward and frankly, much more predictable process where have – look, I think there were some real unknowns about how coverage was going to materialize this prior to our launch. And I think at this point, we are pretty confident that we are going to get comfortably covered with reasonable rebates by the payers. Thanks, Louise.

Thank you.

Thank you. And our next question coming from the line of Dennis Ding with Jefferies. Your line is open.

Hi, good morning. Thanks for taking our questions. I just had one on Immunovant. So on the upcoming 1402 data, can you just remind us the study design and how long is the follow-up for Sat and Madden Interestingly, how often is albumin being measured and as a follow-up, maybe given your comments around the assay variability and that there could be different time points on which albumin is measured and just also appreciating the fact that human reductions can go up and be down at some point and others. And I was just wondering what are some – what’s a good outcome for you guys in SAD and the MAD on the albumin front.

Yes. Thanks, Dennis. I appreciate these questions. And obviously, it’s an area of a lot of focus, so it makes sense. Look, I think on study design, there’s a fair amount about this in the minivan corporate deck and in ours as well. On the SAD study, it’s 6 1402 plus 2 placebo patients. I forget exactly how far that it’s measured, but it’s at least a few weeks. And then on the MAD study, it’s 10 1402 and 2 placebo patients and it’s weekly dosing for 4 weeks and again, with a several week tail at the end. We’ve got pretty frequent data points, I’d say, as a reasonable benchmark if you went and looked at like some of the etokimab data we’ve put out, I’d say like the measurement points are pretty similar. And so early – in fact, we follow these patients out, sorry, a lot more than a few weeks. And there’s sort of a number of measurements within 10 days and then it starts to get a little bit more spaced out in the SAD study. So again, there’s a fair amount of data in event deck on this point. In terms of what good looks like on albumin in the Sat in the Mad against the backdrop of smaller is better. I think, again, with a 5% variability in the assay, I think we hope to be comfortably within 5% and I’d say any of the agents, frankly, that show a 5% or less impact on albumin seem to be pretty well set up from an LDL perspective. So I think it’s Hard to say exactly how things would sort of compound from the SAD study to the MAD study, but in general, I’d say, lowers better within that 5% bar is probably what I’m looking for.

Got it. Thank you.

Thanks, Ding. I appreciate the question.

Thank you. And our next question coming from the line of Karen Jenkins with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.

Good morning. This is Craig on for Karen. So as you referenced earlier in the call, this can be a pretty tricky indication – so on that, what do you view as the bar to support continued study in the indication?

In SLA, you said, yes?

Yes, that’s right.

Yes. Look, I think the way we are currently thinking about the program, understanding that it’s kind of a balance of the factors is Duke is the bar to beat given that they have the back cleaner TYK2. This would count as 1 of 2 pivotal studies, we believe, if successful. So the data from here would already make it onto the label. It’s 52-week study. So it should be relatively predictive of a future study as well, given the way that it’s set up. So I think we have the best possible setup understanding that there has been some complexity in SMA trials before. In terms of the bar, I think it’s a balance of the factors, but I think you’ve heard us say that we think is a mid-teens drug. And you’ve heard us say that we’d like to be better than Sotio. So I think that gives you sort of some indication for where our head is at, but we’re going to have to look at – there’s multiple multiple endpoints and things like that. So I’d say mid- to high teens sort of – and whatever that trend looks into across the other places to look.

Got it. That’s helpful. And maybe just a quick one. You highlighted for the first time that you’ve achieved payer coverage with government covered lives. I guess how should we think of the, I guess, doctor adoption of these patients following this update? Is it going to be a similar timing as the commercial coverage lives – you’ve kind of highlighted it’s around 6 months in the past?

Yes. Look, the truth is that the psoriasis market is sort of 80%-ish commercial anyway. So even though we’ve got a lot of covered lives there. It’s a smaller chunk of the patient population. Index. So I think now that we’ve got coverage, they’re government patients, they’ll sort of accrue over time to better GTN yields and so on. I think in general, I just expect to see steady improvements in GTN from here on out as we get closer and closer to that 50% bogey over the next 12 months and beyond. And I think the government lives will contribute to that, but I don’t think it’s sort of going to be like there’s some kind of step function specifically associated with the government lives.

Got it. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you. And our next question coming from the line Yaron Werber with Cowen. Your line is open.

Great. Thanks for taking that. I have a couple of questions on brepocitinib brepocitinib. And just remind us, AA, Lupica areata, what are your plans sort of with that indication – and then secondly, for HS, can you file – can you just conduct one pivotal? Is that sort of sufficient? Or do you think you need to? And then I guess, finally, at what point can you present or as far as you’re going to present the data from the studies. I mean, the studies are positive, obviously, I’m talking about Crohn’s and HS, but just so we can also understand the overall profile safety-wise. I mean there’s obviously a lot of data out there just so we see the full data.

Yes. Perfect. Look, I think the first answer is on alopecia, we have no like current plans to progress in alopecia. That’s an interesting indication. Our data looks promising, but our view is sort of the same as for the other slightly larger indications. So I think not sort of on our near-term road map, but obviously, with the quality of the data we have, we’ll be watching everything. On the other questions, first of all, on HS specifically, look, I think it’s it’s premature. We haven’t sort of discussed it with FDA in detail or anything like that. We don’t have a concrete plant in there. So I’d probably rather not boxes in on a particular study design. That’s probably what I’d say there. anything else you’d say in terms of the other points or you may be sort of slightly closer than I emptier publication time lines.

Yes. So I think not too much more to add. I think that one study in particular still has a maintenance portion to cover on warlook forward to being more at a future medical meeting. And then the HS study actually has been published at this point. So we can [send that to you your own].

Pfizer’s got discretion on the publication of crunch.

Yes.

Thanks, Yaron. I appreciate it.

Thank you. And our next question coming from the line of Douglas with H.C. Wainwright. Your line is open.

Hey, Doug, you might be on mute.

Can you hear me now, Matt? Sorry about that.

Yes. Perfect.

Okay. Starting with the TAM, I’m just curious, as you have – you successfully added to the coverage for the product. Do you anticipate making any changes to the sort of co-pay card or the sort of access program, consumer access program as it is now. or do you anticipate waiting until getting approval in AD before making any changes?

Yes. Thanks, Doug. It’s a great question. Look, I think for the moment, we have no immediate plans to change the co-pay card. – sort of set up in a way, as I’m sure you appreciate to work well for us as people migrate from uncovered to covered. And unlike some of the other parts that were set up initially, some of our competitor programs or the new topicals have like 10 programs or whatever, where the uncovered side of the card was low in order to attract trips at a time when coverage was spottier. We always had a slightly higher co-pay on the uncovered side. it was frankly set up to carry us into the AD launch and beyond. We evaluate this stuff constantly. And our focus right now is the high prescribing docs feel really great about the product and what we’re really focused on is taking the back to right 2 scripts a month and turning them into 510 script a month box. And I think the sort of goal of whatever changes we make would be to sort of keep that process in motion. But the short answer is, I think the copay card actually works reasonably well. To be honest, if there’s something I think we’re sort of working on, it’s – I think at this point, the actual quality of coverage is better than the perception of coverage I think these docs have been burned a fair amount historically on challenging coverage in derm. And we actually have quite good coverage. It’s easy to obtain many, many of their patients, as you can see from the presentation will be covered. I think many derms frankly, have not like caught up with that reality yet. And so a lot of the educational work we’re doing is just trying to make sure people understand that picture as well as we can possibly help them understand it.

And Matt, you sort of touched on another point, I’m just curious your perspective on how do you – or what’s the plan right now to sort of help accelerate the writing from sort of your low prescribers, right? I mean, because it sounds like your script base is fairly concentrated. And obviously, to sort of take it to the next level, you’re going to need to increase that debt. What are the things that you’re able to do to get people to go beyond just writing that first initial script? And – and are you aware of what is keeping them from online in just a couple of scripts right now.

Yes. Thanks, Doug. Look, it’s a great question. It’s quite literally $1 billion question. So we spend a lot of time thinking about it. I think the short answer is we’ve already taken certain steps. We’ve got now DTC was something we were pretty conservative about up until we got to the sort of good payer coverage position. So within the last month or we’ve really sort of started to ramp up the DTC campaign, and that should take months more to really fully sort of make it into the script volumes but it’s something that we are watching to drive volumes that way. There’s other things too. There’s one property is these patients don’t go to the doctor very often. And so frankly, if you were a – if you were a hyperdrive dermatologists, you’ve been waiting for the VTAMA launch for many years, if you were a leading dermatologist is sort of showed up maybe you wrote a few test scripts or you write a few test scripts every month, but you actually haven’t seen very many patients back in your office, who you put on VTAMA a year ago. And so I think one thing that works in our favor is just time. It’s just back sort of seeing repeat visits from patients who they put on earlier in the launch. And I think that will cause a compounding effect for us. And then we continue to sort of keep our ear to the ground and work on whatever the questions I mentioned, the coverage question is probably one of the most important messaging questions that we’re working on right now is just helping docs understand that which isn’t like other topical, but it’s going to make a difference for their patients, and it’s going to be easy for them to use in a way that some of the other historical launches have been more challenging. And so I think that’s where a lot of our focus is. I’d say in the dock call that I’ve been closest to, frankly, the number one point is this payer coverage point is just doctor a little gun shy about where things are on the payer side. But we hear other things that we continue to work on. And in general, I think doctors are familiar with the product, we’re pretty happy to be using it. So we’re just trying to get everybody else to build some experience in muscle memory. Remember, these stocks write steroids in their sleep. So it just takes – it takes some time. But we’d love to see faster.

Okay, great. Thank you so much.

Thanks, Doug.

Thank you. And I’m not showing any further questions in the Q&A at this time. I will now turn the call back over to Mr. Matt Glen for any closing remarks.

Great. So look, I just want to say thank you to everybody for listening this morning. Thank you to our team for all the work this quarter and beyond. I’m really looking forward to the next couple of months here, and we’re going to have some important opportunities to get back together. And yes, thanks all, and have a great rest of your summer, and we’ll be back here soon to talk about some more exciting updates. So thank you, operator. Thank you, everyone, for listening, and we’ll talk again soon.

Ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude the conference for today. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.