Greetings and welcome to the Alkermes Fourth Quarter and Year-End 2019 Financial Results Conference Call. My name is Rob and I'll be your operator for today's call. [Operator Instructions] Please note that this conference is being recorded. I'll now turn the call over to Sandy Coombs, Vice President of Investor Relations. Sandy, you may begin.

Thank you. Good morning. Welcome to the Alkermes plc conference call to discuss our financial results and business update for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2019. With me today are Richard Pops, our CEO; Jim Frates, our CFO; and Iain Brown, our SVP of Finance. Before we begin, I encourage everyone to go to the Investors Section of alkermes.com to find our press release and related financial tables, including a reconciliation of the GAAP to non-GAAP financial measures that we'll discuss today. We believe the non-GAAP financial results in conjunction with the GAAP results are useful in understanding the ongoing economics of our business. Our discussions during this call will include forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from these forward-looking statements. Please see Slide 2 of the accompanying presentation, our press release issued this morning, and our most recent annual and quarterly reports filed with the SEC for important risk factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements. Our prepared remarks today will include preliminary data from the ARTISTRY clinical program. These data may change as patient enrollment continues and as more patient data becomes available and may not be indicative of final data from such trials or results of future clinical trial. We undertake no obligation to update or revise the information provided on this call or in the accompanying presentation as a result of new information or future results or developments. After our prepared remarks, we'll open the call for Q&A. Now, I'll turn the call over to Jim.

Thank you, Sandy. In 2019, we achieved $1 billion in revenue for the second consecutive year. The back half of the year was particularly active for us. We saw the addition of a new revenue stream with the approval of VUMERITY and set the stage for the potential addition of another revenue stream with the submission of our NDA for ALKS 3831 for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder. We implemented a restructuring in the fourth quarter that recalibrated our cost structure and focused our R&D investments in programs with the highest potential value. And we acquired Rodin Therapeutics, which further diversified our pipeline. I will start with an overview of our key financial and commercial highlights. For the full-year 2019, total revenues grew 7% year-over-year to $1.17 billion and we recorded non-GAAP net income of $112.2 million that was ahead of our expectations. For the fourth quarter, we recorded total revenue of $412.7 million and non-GAAP net income of $131.4 million. These results were driven by growth of our proprietary product sales, continued strength of our base royalty and manufacturing business and the receipt of the $150 million milestone payment from Biogen related to the approval of VUMERITY. VIVITROL net sales in the fourth quarter increased 11% year-over-year to $92.8 million, driven primarily by 14% unit growth. VIVITROL experienced solid growth in key states, such as Arizona, California and Texas and broad-based growth in states with lower VIVITROL share with 19 states growing more than 25% year-over-year. This growth was partially offset by an increase in gross to net adjustments of 47.7% as compared to 46.3% in the fourth quarter of 2018. Sequentially, VIVITROL net sales grew 9% compared to the third quarter of 2019, driven by 7% unit growth and slightly lower gross to net adjustments…

That’s great. Thank you, Jim, and good morning, everyone. So we built a $1 billion top line business through developing important medicines. 2019 was highlighted by important operational achievements across the portfolio. With the approval of VUMERITY for multiple sclerosis, the submission of the ALKS 3831 NDA, the presentation of initial efficacy and safety data from our ALKS 4230 clinical program, and important positive Phase 3 data from the ARISTADA ALPINE study and the VUMERITY EVOLVE-MS-2 study. In 2019, we also focused on actively shaping the future of the business through a rigorous assessment of our products, our pipeline and our structure and took important steps to position the company for long-term growth. We implemented a strategic restructuring in order to reduce our cost structure, and in so doing accelerate and drive sustained non-GAAP profitability. We acquired Rodin Therapeutics, building on our experience in CNS diseases and expanding our development efforts into a wide range of neurodegenerative disorders and we strengthened our Board through two new Independent Directors. One a formal public company CFO, focused on value creation and the other in oncology thought leader, an expert. So as we enter 2020, our key priorities are clear: drive the growth of VIVITROL and ARISTADA through commercial execution; prepare for the launch of ALKS 3831 in schizophrenia and bipolar 1 disorder; advance the development of ALKS 4230 in oncology and build out our HDAC-inhibitor platform. So I will take these briefly in turn. Our work in addiction and in schizophrenia with ARISTADA exemplifies many of the core values of this company. We are out there every day through our science, our medicines and our advocacy working to advance patient centered care for people with these serious conditions. We are making a real-world impact and we are very proud of it. Alkermes…

Great. Thank you, Richard. Rob, we will now open the call for Q&A.

Thank you, Sandy. [Operator Instructions] Thank you. And our first question is from the line of Jason Gerberry with Bank of America. Please proceed with your questions.

Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking my questions. Rich, just first question for me, I wanted to follow-up on your comment about exploring collaboration for 4230 in 2020. So is it fair to say that everything is on the table in terms of the deals you’re looking at or you’re looking at the collaborations where perhaps you can partner with companies to help co-fund R&D to explore more combinations with 4230 in different tumor settings? And then my second question just the guide on VIVITROL, it looks like it implies about a low single-digit drag on net pricing. Just sort of curious if you would characterize that as the trend we should be modeling for VIVITROL on a go-forward basis that effectively net pricing is kind of down low single-digits? Thanks.

Good morning, Jason. I will take the first and I will have Jim and Iain take the second one. So, yes, I think it's fair to say conceptually everything is on the table as we look at 4230 collaboration. The caveat being the objective is to maximize the expected net present value of the whole program. And that’s going to be done by increasing the number of tumor types and lines of therapy that we can explore. What’s interesting is that already as the program is progressing, we are being approached to look at all kinds of different combinations from I-O/I-O combinations to targeted cancer therapies, radiotherapy, conventional chemotherapies and the like, because you can see why this IL-2 pathway be activated selectively as we're doing it, would just conceptually be a reasonable complement to a number of different application. So the value of the program will be maximized by the scope of the clinical program that we have to support. By ourselves we could -- we couldn’t close to finding all the different opportunities. And we’ve been waiting to do that until we had enough information to say, okay, we truly have an agent here that is meeting the profile that we designed to have. And I'm not ready to say we're completely there yet, but all the indications are going in that direction. I think during this year that dataset should mature at the point. So I don't know whether we will -- whether we would consummate a collaboration in 2020. We don't need to, it's not really limiting at this point. We have the funding and the capacity to do it. But I think over the course of this year, the dataset is going to be sufficiently complete, hope to get a good sense of what this molecule can become.

And Jason on the pricing, I mean, I think you picked up on two competing trends that are happening with VIVITROL. As we typically do, we take our volume growth and extrapolate that forward, because it's so hard to predict the changes that happen on a state-by-state level. And this year we are predicting a change by a few percentage points in gross to nets. Last year we are around 48%, we're predicting next year to be 50%. Again, that’s largely driven on where the state business comes from, because every state has a different Medicaid program. And so I would say that's really a course of adjustment that we see today. We are not yet ready to see that continuing out in the future. And again, a lot will depend on where we see the growth coming in the future from various states. The last thing I'd say is we are working really hard into 2020 to focus on the alcohol indication for VIVITROL, which is a part of the payer mix. It has more commercial payment as opposed to opioids. And so we are working hard there to see if we can counteract that pressure on pricing that we're going to see in 2020.

Great. And if I could just follow-up. Is there any impact to the warning letter on VIVITROL baked in the guidance?

No, I think our guidance was developed just in normal course.

Okay. Thank you.

Thanks, Jason.

Our next question is from the line of Chris Shibutani with Cowen and Company. Please proceed with your questions.

Hi, everyone. This is Pam Barendt on for Chris. I’ve a couple of questions. The first one is, looking forward to the next one to three years and the expenses, R&D and SG&A, what percentage of those do you think would be dedicated to oncology now that you’ve said you made partner, but that’s not for certain?

Well, I think a lot will depend, Pam, on the exact partnership. I mean, as Rich outlined, there's both commercial as well as scientific logic to partnering 4230. And I think if we -- the broadest sense, the way I think about it, if we have a partner, we can probably attack a lot more potential indications and spend a lot of money together with a partner. If Alkermes is pursuing it individually, we will certainly target that and it's the broadest guidance I can give you. So far for beyond 2020 is that we're committed to our profitability, and so our investment in R&D across our portfolio will be made with that discipline in mind.

Got it. Thanks. And the next question is specifically about the regulatory path for 3831. First, schizophrenia and secondly for bipolar disorder. Can you let us know how likely or not you think it would be that an AdCom would be held, and why?

Yes. So recall that we filed the NDA for both indications. So we expect if the drug is approved, there will be approved for both indications. And we've taken to the logic of how we arrived at that agreement with FDA. When we receive the notice of acceptance of the NDA last month, FDA indicated they’ve not made a decision yet on an AdCom. We are preparing for an AdCom because 3831 contain samidorphan, which is a new molecular entity. And by statute, typically FDA would think about taking that to an AdCom. So we are prepared for an AdCom and see what -- how the guidance evolves as they get further into the review.

Got it. And you would anticipate providing investors updates on whether the AdCom will be happening?

Of course.

Thank you.

Right. Thanks, Pam.

The next question is from the line of Umer Raffat with Evercore. Please proceed with your questions.

Hi, guys. Thanks for taking my question. I had two, if I may. First, perhaps, if I could clarify on VUMERITY. My understanding is there is a minimum Biogen will be giving you. I’m not super sure what that minimum is on dollar or percent royalty. If you could clarify for us, would be really helpful in modeling. Secondly, on R&D side, I noticed obviously there's a bit of an R&D increase year-over-year and we also saw Lilly ARMO failed their randomized CYPRESS trials in lung cancer with the Pegylated IL-10. So I guess my question is, how are you thinking about your R&D allocation to the IL-2 and IL-10 programs? And should or should we not read into the randomized CYPRESS trials that Lilly ARMO conducted? Thank you very much.

Hey, Umer, it's Richard. Both good questions. The VUMERITY minimums or contractual minimums that we expect to be -- our modeling and Biogen's forecast for us would be exceeded by the 15% royalty. So they’re probably not economically operational in 2020 or beyond. The Lilly failure absolutely affects our planning for IL-10. It was one thing in pancreatic, but in small cell in combination with nivo and pembro to strike out on both. So we are absolutely reassessing our decision to move forward into the clinic with our IL-10 construct. IL-2 unaffected, right. That’s 4230, that’s rolling. And so we are getting more and more positive momentum between the -- behind the 4230 program for the reasons I outlined in my early remarks.

Thank you very much.

Our next question is from the line of Cory Kasimov with JPMorgan. Please proceed with your questions.

Hey, guys. This is Matthew on for Cory and thanks for taking my questions. First one on ALKS 4230. And based on the updated data that you present today, just curious how you're thinking about the weekly dose relative to the once every three weeks regimen in terms of both PK and biological effect?

It's a super question and we don't know the answer to it yet, because we're still escalating in both. Both appear to have differentiated tolerability profile, both are driving biological responses, but it's too early to tell whether one is better than the other or whether they both might coexist. You can even -- people have speculated with the idea of induction with weekly and then maintenance on every three weeks, but we just don't know yet. But we're quite excited to see these early returns.

Got it. Thank you. And then on VUMERITY, is there a plan to submit regulatory filing outside the U.S? And if so, can you comment on potential timelines associated with that?

I think that question is best directed to Biogen.

Got it. Thanks for taking my questions.

You’re welcome.

Thanks, Matt.

Our next question is from the line of Brandon Folkes with Cantor Fitzgerald. Please proceed with your questions.

Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. Firstly, could you just elaborate on your assumptions regarding the competitive environment for VIVITROL in opioid use disorder in 2020 as well as some of the sources of growth in that business, especially as we’re seeing SUBLOCADE, gain some traction? And then, secondly, I know you touched on it, but could you just provide some additional insight into the alcohol use indication and whether you’re seeing growth there and sources of growth as well? Thank you.

I will take it, Brandon. It's interesting in opioid use disorder, there are really only three medicines that are used for the treatment of opioid use disorder. And that -- those being methadone and buprenorphine and VIVITROL. The first two, whether buprenorphine is used in the injectable form or in the sublingual or tablet form, it's -- these are both replacement medicines and they’re indicated for the maintenance treatment of opioid dependence. Whereas VIVITROL is indicated for prevention of relapsed opioid dependence following opioid detoxification. So they’re really different medicines for different purposes. So I don't see any change necessary conceptually in the positioning of VIVITROL in 2020 versus 2019 or 2018 or 2017. The principal impediment to growth of VIVITROL in opioid use disorder is the fact that the treatment system has never really been oriented to use an antagonist medicine. Its -- it was born and raised in the opioid replacement philosophy, and we've been fighting that and building around it for the last several years and we'll keep doing that. Alcohol is interesting because you may recall that the first approval for VIVITROL was for alcohol use. And it launched into a -- into an environment where medicines really weren’t used at all. 12-step program has been the dominant form of treatment. As VIVITROL has grown in opioid use disorder, now something on the order of 10,000 people will go on VIVITROL this week. You’ve had a much bigger halo or circle of physicians and treatment centers that are getting comfortable using VIVITROL. And there's been a virtuous cycle back to its use in alcohol as well. In alcohol, we really don't compete against buprenorphine or anything else. We compete against the lack of pharmacologic therapy at all. As Jim mentioned in his remarks, it's a different payer mix often in alcohol as well. It's a more commercial oriented payers. So because we've had some growing traction in alcohol in various states, we're going to shift some of our marketing resources more toward alcohol in 2020 and we think beyond. And we will let you know how that goes, but we’re excited about that opportunity. Jim, anything you want to add to that?

No, I think that’s right. And again, so much of it depends on the state-by-state ecosystem. Some states you see alcohol being the place where we're starting to make inroads in growth. And I think as Rich said, that offers a really nice growth opportunity for us in 2020, along with state and federal funding that’s continuing to come from the opioid crisis and we think VIVITROL should get its fair share of that as well. So that's where we're looking to growth in 2020. But since it's hard to predict how we are going, each state performs, we’ve -- we're going to maintain the tradition that we’ve had of guiding to the current growth rates essentially into the next year

Great. Thank you. Very helpful.

Thank you. Our next question is from the line of Biren Amin with Jefferies. Please proceed with your questions.

Yes. Hi, guys. Thanks for taking my questions. Richard on ARISTADA, I think you mentioned that you’ve captured 32% of nRxes in the LAI market. How is that split across institution channels versus community channels? And then, on 4230 in ARTISTRY-1, I think you mentioned that you’ve -- the two PRs are continuing out to beyond a year. Can you talk about the three stable disease patients? And if they’re continuing, if they progressed or if they’ve converted to responders? And then on ARTISTRY-2, I guest at SITC, the company was evaluating the 0.6 milligram weekly dose and the 1 milligram Q3 weekly dose. So can you just talk about, I guess the NK and CD8 expansion and how that compared to the Q.D dosing regimen?

Yes, I won't be able to answer all of those, Biren. I look to Jim on the first one, in terms of the split on the nRxes in channels. Do you know the answer of that, Jim?

No, we haven’t gone down to that level of detail and I would say it's pretty consistent across the institutional and community mental health centers. I think the one place where we’ve talked about where our national share is below, where we'd like to see it is in the VA. With the formulary acceptance early last year and then moving into the individual visions through the year, we think in 2020 we can start to get the VA penetration up to more national numbers. And just to be clear, that 32% was in terms of months of therapy in the aripiprazole LAI market, we're at about 9% share in the overall atypical LAI market.

And on the 4230 stuff, what I don’t want to do is give anything more than we gave in the prepared remarks simply because we made a decision about some incremental data we’ve put in on the call, but we still want to preserve the ability to present data at upcoming meetings. The -- with respect to the ARTISTRY-2, I will say as we escalate Q weekly and Q three weekly, we do think we'll will be mimicking one can achieve with high-dose IL-2 with so far looking like a tolerability profile that's different than what we've seen IV. And there are some reasons for that that will explain at some later time, but we're quite excited about that. So those escalations continue in both of those dosing duration arms.

Great. Thank you.

You’re welcome.

Our next question comes from the line of Douglas Tsao with H.C. Wainwright. Please proceed with your questions.

Hi, good morning. Thanks for taking the questions. Just, Jim maybe to start on in terms of the guidance on the SG&A side. I think you indicated that most of the sales force build out for 3831 will occur in the early part of 2021, just given scheduling. Just curious, are there going to be other prelaunch activities that we should account for when we think about the cadence of SG&A through the course of 2020? And then just also curious on 3831, how much of a significant sales force addition we should expect and how much overlap between the script writing base do you see between 3831 and ARISTADA, or are they just really two different segments in terms of people who are writing LAIs versus patients who are writing something like 3831? Thank you.

Yes, you’re welcome, Doug. Thanks. Good questions. First on the cadence of SG&A spend, I think it's going to be pretty flat through the course of the year. And obviously there will be some variance, but market development work that we're doing with 3831, some of which we spent in 2019 will continue to do that, appropriate education of the disease state area in 2020, but really through a flat cadence as it were. When it comes to the sales force, I think we're still working on the exact sizing. There certainly is overlap between the targets that we are calling on now with our roughly 200 people with the ARISTADA field force. I think we're talking in the range of 100 to 200 people, not 400 to 500 people as you're looking at launching an oral product. So, those Venn diagrams overlap -- certainly roughly 50-50 in terms of the targets with the high-value prescribers and certainly institutions that are using LAIs, also use -- would use oral agents and be logical targets for that. But we'll give some more specificity on that as we do more fieldwork and research and come to exact decisions about how larger our sales force would be. But hopefully that gives you some parameters in terms of size.

Okay, great. Thank you very much.

You’re welcome.

Our next question in from the line of Paul Matteis with Stifel. Please proceed with your questions.

Hi. Thanks, guys. This is Nate on for Paul. Two questions maybe on opposite ends of the business. First off, on ARISTADA gross to net it seems like -- I've heard you talk in the past about being able to hold kind of steady around the 50% range. Is that a reasonable assumption still, or can we expect it to continue to slide up maybe 1% or 2% a year. And then secondly, maybe if you can just -- I know it's very early, but provide us with an update on the HDAC platform and where you are with candidates and when you think you might be able to hit humans or how IND enabling studies are going? Thanks.

Sure. I will take the first one. And then Rich can answer the one about Rodin and HDAC. In terms of gross to nets with ARISTADA, we did see a change this year, I think two things really drove that. There was a consolidation, which I would say is probably a one-time consolidation in the -- of the large insurers in the United States, Aetna, CVS etcetera, that really drives managed Medicaid business in the various states and so with larger buying power that affected our gross to nets a little bit. So the other part is the increasing opportunity we see in the VA. So I think it's hard to predict how those things will change in '21 and beyond, but I think -- so I would say, modeling at 52% is appropriate for 2020. I wouldn’t necessarily pick it up beyond that in future years, because that consolidation is more of a one-time thing. And the growth might be related to our growth in the VA, but hopefully we can offset that with growth in broader parts of the lower gross to net part of the business separate from the VA, if that makes sense.

I will take the question on the HDAC, because I know you guys have a lot of background with where Rodin was in their development. It's really interesting to see when you take it out of the context of the small venture backed company and put it into our capabilities, which much broader chemistry as well as formulation and biology capabilities, we’re running hard now in three parallel tracks. Rodin was focused primarily on the large synaptopathies that we’ve talked about, primarily Alzheimer's disease. We are as well. But we've expanded that now to include accelerating the FTD program, the progranulin program as well as looking at opportunities in oncology. So we're doing an IND-enabling work in that first category and perhaps in the second category, we hope to nominate a candidate by year-end.

Great. Very helpful. Thanks, guys.

Welcome.

Our next question is from the line of Akash Tewari with Wolfe Research. Please proceed with your questions.

Hey, guys. Thanks so much for taking my questions. So I wanted to maybe reconcile some of the comments you were making on the R&D spend with what we kind of had in 2019. And I know that the K isn't out yet, so I’m kind of extrapolate a bit. But for 3831, let's just say that for your external R&D there's $31 million, VUMERITY $30 million, 5461 $20 million, 4230 $34 million and then the other external R&D programs about $70 million. If we are going to take down the IL-10 spending, it looks like for 3831, VUMERITY and 5461, that should at least decrease over time. Is it fair to say that if consensus is kind of modeling flattish R&D spend over the next two years, you do have some optionality here where it could be a bit lower than what -- where it kind of modeling at the moment? And then on VUMERITY expectations, and I guess maybe this is a better question for Biogen, but given the TECFIDERA IP win, how should we kind of think about how their switch strategy evolves? And I noticed there is not that much baked in for VUMERITY estimates, I guess in the 2020 guidance, how should we think about that evolving over time? Thanks a lot.

Very welcome. Good questions. I think what I would say about the spend shift between 2019 and 2020 in R&D is that, you're right, certain things obviously like 5461 and VUMERITY will be coming down. I think the place where we’re focused going forward to the large degree is 4230 and the expansion there. Its -- It is hard to predict just how fast the patients will accrue and exactly what course in each of the therapies that they will take, how long will they stay on therapy and obviously, if it's a study in combination with pembro, that’s quite expensive because right now we're purchasing pembro on our own, I think appropriately so as we gather more data there. So the real toggle in 2020 and beyond will be 4230 and that will depend again on the breadth of the program that we have and whether we're spending on it alone or potentially with the partner. I would say, importantly to note though there is an ongoing study in early in-illness study for 3831, which as that grows, that will -- so that spending for 3831 is not going to be decreasing as much as you might think, if you just said, well, the NDA is filed and so R&D will tail down on 3831. So we look every year as we make investments in R&D and we will continue to drive our focus on profitability, but also investing in the pipeline, which can really drive the top line which is going to get us to where we want to be in the long-term.

And this is Rich on the VUMERITY, you anticipated my response because I really do think Biogen are the right one to ask, but I will give you two cents on it, which is I don't think the IPR victory changed the switch strategy. I think early entry of generics might have. But I think the basic strategy has been to focus on new starts and let the differentiating features of the product reveal themselves over time. So we were pleased with that decision because it just gives a little bit more time for the organized launch and introduction of VUMERITY as a next generation product. And I think that with patent life into the 30s, there's a lot of reasons to evolve this market toward VUMERITY.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Our next question is from the line of Marc Goodman with SVB Leerink. Please proceed with your questions.

Morning. Couple of questions. First of all, Rich, can you give us a flavor of what's going on behind the scenes in the oncology business, excluding 4230? What you guys are doing, whether it's molecule specific or just broad changes that are going on behind the scenes? And just to piggyback on the last question, maybe you can just give us a sense of how much you will be spending on 4230 this year in the R&D budget? I mean are we talking $100 million? Are we talking more than that? And then, second of all VIVITROL, can you give us a sense of how much of the business today is alcohol versus opioids? Thanks.

Good morning, Marc. I will take the first and I will let Jim in on the second two. There's a couple different areas we talked about publicly on the oncology side that we're excited about. One is embodied in the IL-2 program, which is this idea of engineered cytokines. And our -- the way we -- the ability that we’ve to engineer proteins as well as antibody constructs in oncology, exploiting known features of cytokines is -- hopefully, that will continue to bear fruit for us. With the caveat that Umer raised on IL-2, on IL-10, where we have some other things cooking in the labs as well. The other one is HDACs in oncology, particularly the most immediate adjacency, what we’re doing with the CoREST complex targeted HDACs, is for neuronal specific brain penetrant HDACs in things like neuroblastoma, medulloblastoma, glioblastoma. So those programs are active right now and we'll see where they go, but that pharmacology and obviously for -- as HDAC as oncolytic agents is established. And then we’ve some other small molecule stuff going on in the LAIs, we haven’t disclosed, but hopefully we'll get to the point where it's worth talking about in the future.

And I think the R&D spends of 4230 in 2020, we are anticipating an increase as compared to where we were in 2019. I think overall about 20% of the total R&D budget would be focused on external expenses related to 4230. And then in addition to that we have obviously an internal team of people working on the program as well. So that'll give you a sense as to how much we are spending in the year.

And then, Marc, in terms of the alcohol opioid split, it's a good question and the only way we can really get a look at that is through the prescriptions that come through our hub. That’s about 30% of our business and if you looked at that, the actual percentage of alcohol is moving up a little bit and we predict now that it's about 60-40, opioid alcohol being around 40%. Again, that's in the business through the hub. So it's a little hard to extrapolate on the whole business, but that's the sense that we have and that's why we're focused on trying to drive additional growth in alcohol in 2020.

Thanks.

You’re welcome.

The next question is from the line of Vamil Divan with Mizuho. Please proceed with your questions.

Great. Thanks for taking my questions. So one on 3831 just as we are sort of getting closer to potential approval here. Can you share any updated thoughts around the interactions you have with payers? I think there's a lot of question there in terms of the steps patients may have to go through in terms of getting on therapy? And I guess specifically, the questions around would, will there be a need for patients to take a generic version of Zyprexa before they would be able to take 3831. So any updated thoughts you can share would be helpful. And then the other one just on ARISTADA. Just curious, INITIO has been on the market for a little while now. Just -- maybe just some updated thoughts in terms of the impact that had on patients starting? And has been -- had the impact that you expected when you launch that version? Thanks.

Good morning, Vamil. I will take those. The first round of interaction with payers in 2019 was more general about how would you position, how would you treat a new branded antipsychotic agent. And so actually it's surprisingly none -- there aren’t a lot of questions. We know exactly what happened because we’ve been in this market with ARISTADA, which is that patients don't get access to branded medicines until they fail on generic medications often more than once. The specific answer about the step through on olanzapine, I don’t think we will have a definitive answer on that until we're able to present the clinical data in the label from our -- as we complete the interactions with FDA. We expect that there's a strong medical rational not to have -- force patients to gain weight or have metabolic perturbances as they cycle through olanzapine. But being the way the world is in schizophrenia, I would imagine at the end of the day, we will have a range of different access restrictions by various plans ranging from very open access to very restrictive access. But we will -- like we did with ARISTADA, we will sequentially seek to knock those down over time. But we know going in and anybody launching into the schizophrenia market should know that you're going to be step through generic medications before patients get access to its branded medications. And the countervailing force, of course, is it just almost everybody does cycle through multiple generic medications, and there is a tremendous amount of unmet need out there. In our case, we really feel like that the principal unmet need is efficacy and that's what we're bringing.

Yes, great. Well, hi, it's Jim. In terms of the INITIO and its impact on launch, I would say that INITIO is very much related to our 2-month dosage form. That’s the focus that we are educating the market around and I think that we're having a nice response from the market. And the 2-month is growing very nicely. It's now over 30% of our total scripts and that's directly related to INITIO. So that's a major differentiation between the other LAIs as you know to be able to comment and start in a matter of days and leave your place of therapy with 2 months of medication on board with ARISTADA is a very, very important opportunity for patients and physicians. So I would say, INITIO tied to 2 months that growth is really going quite nicely and we expect that to continue to grow.

In fact, I will put a finer point on that even for you, Vamil, that the marketing message for ARISTADA, as it evolve from its original approval through the approval of the multiple elements of the product family, in 2020 it's very much focused down on what Jim just said. INITIO plus 2 month. It's a really differentiated offering in the marketplace. Its six injections, six interventions across the year, and you can provide therapeutic concentrations of a very well-tolerated, highly efficacious medicine. And that regimen was supported by a large Phase 3 study called ALPINE, which we unblinded in the middle of last year. So all roads are pointing toward right now the clarity of message around INITIO in 2-month.

Okay. Thanks.

Thank you. The next question is from the line of Terence Flynn with Goldman Sachs. Please proceed with your questions.

Hi. This is Holly Barra on for Terence. Thanks so much for taking the question. One on 4230, what would you like to see from the ongoing combination trial to advance the drug forward and continue to invest resources there? Thanks so much.

I think you could probably answer that question yourself. I think we -- what we want to see is the efficacy of this medication. We already have demonstrated the biological activity and tolerability profile that now we're investigating its efficacy as an oncology agent in a number of different settings both as monotherapy and then in combination with -- at the moment, I-O agent like pembrolizumab, both in settings where pembro is approved and in settings where pembro by itself has not been approved. So what we’re hoping is that 4230 can unlock additional biologic potential of the PD-1s and also open up new areas of cancer treatment that are currently unavailable to patients if they're looking for a treatment with PD-1. Then, beyond that, we think that 4230 can be an effective combination agent with a number of other non-I-O agents as well across a number of different treatment settings and lines of therapy. So we've a lot to learn about 4230. What’s so encouraging to us is that the basic -- the hurdles that we set for ourselves in advance to get over to convince ourselves that we have an active agent here, we are sequentially crossing each of those hurdles successfully. So I think our optimism is growing.

Okay. We have time for one more question, please Rob.

The question will be coming from the line of Danielle Brill with Piper Jaffray.

Hi, guys. Good morning. Thanks for the question. Just a quick follow-up on the HDAC platform. Curious, how you're thinking specifically about the FTD opportunity considering gene therapy approaches targeting progranulin are already entering the clinic? And then I may have missed this, but how soon do you think you could get your progranulin program into the clinic? Thanks.

Yes. Good morning, Danielle. Good questions because the FTD program is one that I’m not ready to say that we’ve got a horse in this race yet. I know that we have a really strong hypothesis and the chemistry is promising. And I could -- I think our scientists would make the argument that it's not clear that gene therapy approach would be necessarily superior to a small molecule, a well-tolerated oral small molecule, given the regional distribution in the brain of where you might want progranulin expression. So if we can -- if we have highly penetrant drugs that are both driving progranulin as well as increasing synaptogenesis, that could be very interesting. But I think there are still plenty of risk here. So I’m not ready to say that we were better or worse than anybody else.

Understood. Thank you.

You’re welcome.

Thank you. We’ve reached the end of the time allotted for today's question-and-answer session. I will now turn the call over to Sandy Coombs for closing remarks.

Right. Thank you everyone for joining us on the call today. If you any follow-up questions, please feel free to reach out to us at the company.

This concludes today's conference. You may now disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.