Good day and thank you for standing-by. Welcome to the Second Quarter 2021 Jazz Pharmaceuticals Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Please be advised that today’s conference is being recorded. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Andrea Flynn. Please go ahead.

Thank you and good afternoon, everyone. Today Jazz Pharmaceuticals reported its second quarter 2021 financial results. The slide presentation accompanying this webcast is available on the Investors section of our website. Investors may also refer to the press release we issued earlier today, which is also posted to our website. On the call today are Bruce Cozadd, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; Renee Gala, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Dan Swisher, President; and Rob Iannone; Executive Vice President, R&D and Chief Medical Officer; Phil Jochelson, Neuroscience Therapeutic Head will also join the team for Q&A. On Slide 2, I’d like to remind you that today’s webcast includes forward-looking statements, such as those related to our future financial and operating results, growth potential and anticipated development and commercialization milestones and goals, which involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual events, performance and results to differ materially from those contained in these forward-looking statements. We encourage you to review the statements contained in today’s press release on Slide 2 and in our latest SEC disclosure documents, which identify certain factors that may cause the Company’s actual events, performance and results to differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements made on today’s webcast. We undertake no duty or obligation to update our forward-looking statements. Turning to Slide 3, on this webcast, we’ll discuss non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations of GAAP to non-GAAP financial measures are included in today’s press release and slide presentation available on the Investors section of our website. With that, I’ll now turn the call over to Bruce. Bruce Thanks, Andrea. Good afternoon, everyone and thank you for joining us today. I’ll start on Slide 5. Looking back at the first half of the year. I’m proud of how our team has continued to deliver operational…

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Ken Cacciatore of Cowen and Company. Your line is open.

Hi. Thanks team for the commentary around generic Xyrem and triggering events. Just a couple questions around it. Is this for all of the settlements, or is it for selected generics. And then trying to understand if there are any volume restrictions or is the triggering event limit or unleash all kinds of volume restrictions that you may have. And then obviously just would like to hear any commentary, how you think this would evolve – the marketplace would evolve the language around Xywav in the orphan designation clearly, incredibly favorable. So just trying to get a sense of how you think managed care would handle the generic optionality with that type of language that Xywav has? Thank you.

Yes. Thanks, Ken for your question. So, again as Dan mentioned in his remarks, we view it as upside if the Xywav launch is going so well that in fact Xyrem revenues have dropped to the point that this kicks in. But to your specific questions that would trigger an earlier launch of the first AG, which is Hikmas, the other AGs, which are all volume limited, as you’ll recall, to each a low single digit percentage or a single digit percentage of prior year volume even collectively the three volume limited AGs, would not up to all that much volume. Those would track six months after Hikma. So they are accelerated, but not to the same data segment to a date six months later. And there will be no impact of that acceleration of the AG launches to the generic launches, which would be allowable as of the beginning of 2026. So, no impact on the volume restrictions, one of your questions. In terms of how the market will evolve, we’re very pleased that the availability of a lower sodium product, which we believe is a healthier lifelong treatment option for patients is being well received by physicians and patients. And as we’ve said, as we look out into 2023 and we picked that year to be a year where there could be multiple other oxybate products on the market, we still continue to believe Xywav would be the dominant brand and have the most of patients. We’ve got strong commercial coverage for both Xyrem and Xywav. We don’t see that changing in the future. And again, if you could imagine patients being well controlled on this lower sodium product and remember that that lowering is a 92% reduction to move those patients back to a product that would then have more than 10 times the sodium level, a full – up to a full gram-and-a-half or more of extra sodium per night when it’s known that sodium matters in terms of impact on cardiovascular comorbidity and we know that the narcolepsy population is itself at higher risk on cardiovascular risk. We just think that it will be clear to people, the better choice for ongoing therapy.

Great. Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Jessica Fye of JPMorgan. Your line is open.

Hey guys, good afternoon. Thanks for taking my question. I have one short-one, so I’m going to try and sneak in a second one as well. First one is, what was the year-over-year change in oxybate revenue bottle volume this quarter? And the second one is can you frame for investors the reason for either confidence or caution heading into the nabiximols Phase 3 data in MS spasticity and you can you provide the timing for the readout of each of those trials?

So thanks, Jess for your one-short and then one for question. We’ll let you get away with that. Maybe I could ask Dan to take the first part of your question which is really around oxybate volumes and then perhaps I could have Rob comment around your questions about the nabiximols clinical program. Dan?

Yes. Thanks, Bruce. So Jess, we were very pleased to see that the overall oxybate market share of 5% year-over-year increase, we referenced that our sales were a 3% increase in, so you can imagine as we had said with Xywav and as we were ramping up commercial coverage, we wanted to make sure there was no inability for patients to access therapy. So, we had a range of bridging programs. The good news is as we emerge from the second quarter. We have over 80% coverage now and it’s continuing to increase and so we expect that revenue bottles will be tracking to patient growth and you’ll see that in the coming quarters. But we’re not giving specific bottle volume numbers at this point.

Just for this quarter or going forward?

Going forward.

Okay.

Your next question comes from the line of Jason Gerberry of Bank of America. Your line is open.

Hey, just before we go on, I think there was a question on the nabiximols too and Rob, if you want to address that. That would be great?

Yes. Thanks for the question, Jess. So, we have a comprehensive program for nabiximols to provide that bridging between already strong data that allowed approval in many jurisdictions outside the U.S. that’s MS 5 studies in spinal cord injury two studies and some of them are already underway and we expect that as they read out, they potentially will give the opportunity to provide enough breathing data for submission in the U.S. I don’t know that we’ve given specific timings on the read – around the readout of each of those studies.

And just to follow-up, we went back and checked the language in our Q, which you’ll be able to see soon and we did give a revenue bottles figure of down less than 1% year-over-year for the quarter across oxybate. Operator, I think we’re going to go to Jason.

Yes. Hey, guys. So I just wanted to follow up on Ken’s question actually. So, Bruce your interpretation that the Xywav orphan exclusivity would pertain to potentially blocking approval of any high sodium composition of oxybate or it would seem to us that it’s exclusive to kind of lower sodium composition since that was the basis of the clinical superiority finding. But I just wanted to run that by you?

So, Jason, my understanding is the orphan drug exclusivity granted to Xywav means that no other oxybate product should be approved in narcolepsy unless FDA determines that it is superior to Xywav, which the FDA can do on a variety of measures potentially.

Since about that interpretation generic and those of high sodium should not be approvable?

I think we’re talking about new approvals.

Right. But, only we’ve only had Hikma get approved and they’ve discontinued. I think there approvals, so there are approvals technically of generic and so, I guess all the others wouldn’t technically be gated by the ODE period?

I think historically it’s been FDA’s view that orphan exclusivity does not block approval of generics to a product on the market.

Okay, all right. Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Jeff Hung of Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.

Hi. This is Melina Santoro on for Jeff. Thanks for taking our question. Can you tell us what the breakout is of Epidiolex by indication and kind of what you see as the key growth driver going forward. And also what kind of impact you’re expecting from off label indications? Thank you.

So, Dan, maybe I’ll let you talk to how the evolving launch of Epidiolex continues to progress and where we see use coming from now and in the future.

Yes. Thanks, Bruce. So on the Epidiolex U.S. launch really pleased with the performance to date and what has been accomplished even in the midst of the COVID pandemic that dampened down some of the new patient starts. We see continued penetration into the current indications and in particular TSC, which was just recently launched in the fall of last year, but the number of patients available, but also higher doses. Clearly we see opportunity to go beyond the three indications and seizure types into EMAS. So we’re excited to move into that area. And as we referenced but didn’t put a lot of substance behind it. The European and international rollout continues to progress nicely too with recent reimbursement now in four of the five major European countries. So we also see continued contributions and growth from the international markets going forward.

Your next question comes from the line of David Amsellem of Piper Sandler. Your line is open.

Thanks. Just wanted to continue on the theme of Epidiolex. Can you just talk about what your penetration is in the three approved indications even if you can’t go into specifics is qualitatively what you’re seeing. And then secondly, how should we think about patient attrition or patient attrition rates across the approved indications or even just overall. And do you expect that with the easing of the pandemic, Delta COVID notwithstanding that attrition rates might attenuate to some extent with some more greater normalization of in-office visits if you will. Maybe help us understand your thought process there? Thanks.

Thanks, David. Dan, you want to take it?

Yes. So, persistency is definitely hallmark of the brand and something we saw both in the diligence and continue to see in the market. It makes up the Epidiolex, particularly important in this refractory epilepsy setting is, which is a polypharmacy, it’s a unique mechanism of action relative to the other anti-seizure medicines. And we really see it becoming a cornerstone of therapy for those patients. And so often if benefit has been derived from the drug, it’s continued and there may be some tinkering around the edges with other therapies. So with or without COVID we think persistency is going to be a hallmark for the brand. In terms of penetration rates, I know GW did give a number last year by indication. Those are the only numbers kind of out there and that was a single point in time. I think we have an opportunities for going post-COVID and seen patients return to the clinic that an increasing number of patients will be available to access. There is definitely a reluctance to put these pediatric kids at risk to tinker with their medicines where there could be an ER visit or something else if it doesn’t go quite right. So kind of post-COVID, we see a lot more opportunity for fine tuning those therapies without that concern.

Since I took the opportunity to clarify one of Dan’s answers earlier. I’m now going to take the opportunity to clarify one of my earlier answers and say, when I said that Xywav would be unlikely to block and those to an existing approved product, I meant to Xyrem, it would block and those to Xywav for the period of ODE exclusivity, which is seven years from Xywav launch date. Operator?

Your next question comes from the line of Gary Nachman of BMO Capital Markets. Your line is open.

Given the Xywav share of total oxybate patients is accelerated nicely since launch, now you’re at about a third of total. It sounds like we’re reaching a point where that will level out more perhaps it was some lower hanging fruit with the early adopters like Dan said earlier. So just walk through the next steps of the ramp in more detail how you plan to broaden the prescriber base and patients that are Xyrem naive versus switches from Xyrem. And then with IH if you get that approval do you think that’s going to further provide a tailwind for the narcolepsy indication as well? Thank you.

Yes, Gary, thanks for those questions. And let me just be clear we think Xywav is a better product for all patients and our goal would be to make that therapies available to as many existing oxybate and new oxybate patients as possible. We’re certainly ramping up our efforts as Dan talked about to go after those physicians who have not yet been as frequent prescribers or prescribers at all of Xywav to date. So we’ve got some work to do, but we’re continuing that effort to try to bring this product to them. Maybe I’ll let Dan comment on your point about whether IH provides any additional impetus moving forward. Dan?

Yes. Thanks, Bruce. We are very, very excited for the IH indication coming up and physicians have seen the clinical results at some of the recent conferences and we’ve been doing disease education among physicians and patients. And as the only medication available with some outstanding clinical results, we do think that will make a difference across those offices, including those that may not have fully adopted Xywav in narcolepsy yet because this will be the one and only approved therapy. The good news is the market’s concentrated it’s the same physician audience that we’re calling upon. And so I do think, one it’s an opportunity in and of itself, but two it does create additional opportunity for interactions with the HCPs, including those that may not have fully embraced Xywav for narcolepsy.

Great. Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Annabel Samimy of Stifel. Your line is open.

Hi. I had a quick question regarding nabiximols. You have the Phase 3 MS spasticity study ongoing. Is the goal to get a broad label with this MS study? Are you also seeking the SCI? Do you have to do additional studies there and when should we be expecting submission of this program? And just one other question on nabiximols, you have a study I guess there were some plans for PTSD as well, but you have the JZP150 planned Phase 2 for initiation at the end of this year, do you plan on reprioritizing the PTSD for nabiximols and prioritizing 150? Thanks.

Okay Thanks, Annabel. Rob, let me come to you for the nabiximols and the PTSD.

Thanks, Bruce. So, as we mentioned earlier, we have a comprehensive program which reflects input from FDA around how best to bridge from all the – I would say the voluminous data that RNA existed in support approvals around the globe. We chose to study two indications in particular and whether ultimately a label would be broader than that I think would be determined upon review. In terms of the earliest that we could possibly submit, we do think there’s meaningful data that will come out of each of those studies that are planned and with several ongoing and that would mean that early as possible to support an NDA submission could be within the next one or two years. And then, we haven’t provided any details on prioritization of PTSD, I mean we are excited to be working in the steel, which where there is really a substantial unmet medical need and now we have several mechanisms within our portfolio that potentially could address it. So, we’ve discussed, JDP150 program, but certainly have significant expertise in that space and we’ll be looking to leverage that further. The 150 program as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, we’re excited to be starting that trial this year.

Yes. Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Esther Rajavelu of UBS, your line is open.

Hey, thank you for taking my question. On Zepzelca, can you talk about the inventory dynamics in this quarter and also any color you can share on what you’re seeing with regards to duration of therapy, as you’re moving more into the second line, that would be helpful?

Yes. So Dan, do you want to take the inventory and demand question and then for Dan or Rob, any comments on duration of Zepzelca therapy?

Sure. Yes. With a rapidly adopted new therapy, it’s not unusual for distributors to carry a little bit of excess inventory at the beginning. And then as you start to see a little more of the real usage trends and more consistent pattern of ordering to get them down to a lower level sense, we can ship product to the wholesaler and to the clinic pretty quickly. So what we’re saying is the underlying demand growth is what’s relevant the 8%, 9% growth and that’s going to be more reflective we think of the ex-factory growth will be closer to that demand growth. What we’re focused on of course is establishing a standard of care. We do look at monthly chart reviews and we see continued penetration into all sectors of those parts of second-line therapy. As you get to the patients who have better prognosis particularly platinum sensitive. There is an opportunity to have much longer clinical benefit and more therapy. Exactly the duration of therapy, we need a little more time to see that market mature. But what we’re happy to see is that the percentage increase in the standard of care in those settings is continuing to increase and excited now for the additional data that will come from the trials that are pending.

Rob, would you like to add your...

Yes. Thanks, Bruce. I would just reinforce a few things not speaking to specific data, but just what we’re hearing in the field from our medical personnel is that, what they’re seeing is what we saw on clinical trials. So, good responses in patients and as Dan mentioned, patients who had had initial good response and relapse tend to do very well on Zepzelca. Also the tolerability has been very good in the clinical trial that supported registration and less than 2% drop out due to toxicity and so Zepzelca has a favorable tolerability profile and can be continued without this continuation for the great majority of the patients until disease progression. I would also just take the opportunity to just comment on our excitement around the first line trial that we plan to initiate later this year. This is first line extensive stage small cell lung cancer, where Zepzelca will be add-on to the standard of care in that line, which includes tesidolumab. This gives us a chance to intervene on patients who have minimal residual disease most commonly they do have the residual disease, but they’ve experienced the response or some benefits from their initial chemo, but had to stop that chemo. It’s an opportunity to intervene earlier before those patients progress and then often are in difficult situations initiate a subsequent therapy. And we’re hoping that setting the duration of therapy would be even longer in a population of patients, it’s even higher really to extend that period of progression-free survival patients feel and are experiencing a high quality of life.

Okay. Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of Marc Goodman of SVB Leerink. Your line is open.

Marc, are you there?

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Can you hear me now? Sorry about that. I was wondering if you could comment on cost synergies. Where we are with respect to how much we’ve achieved so far what we’re thinking about for next year. And if, we found some other places for some synergies? Thanks.

Renee?

Yes. Thanks, Bruce. And Marc, I’m happy to address that. So, when we announced the transaction, we announced that we expected to achieve about $45 million synergies in the first full year following the transaction, so that would be next year. We’ve also said, of course, that this transaction is really not about cost synergies, but where we are today and as we’re looking at 2022, I feel very confident that we’ll be able to achieve these synergies. And as we have said in the past where we would expect these to come from is some of the typical overlap between functions that two public companies would have that you really wouldn’t need to duplicate and bringing them together. And as we’ve been working through our integration being able to integrate the teams across the board, we’ve really had great success that being able to recruit talent, ensure that the teams are integrating well that we’re able to get our R&D colleagues working together rapidly, because we do see good synergies there. With respect to the ability to have the teams working together, collaborating together and being able to accelerate some of our work on the pipeline side. So big picture, we’re in great shape with respect to being able to identify our cost synergies. And as we’ve stated previously that’s unlikely to come from very much in the tune of an employee overlap. It’s really more and some of the functional areas that you wouldn’t need two – for two public companies such as Boards of Directors and that sort of thing.

So you’re basically saying that their G&A was about $45 million and that’s what you’re taking out and that’s about it?

No Marc, I’d say that’s a little simplistic. As Rene said, there are lots of duplicate cost we don’t need and are eliminated she gave the example of the Board of Directors. We’re not going to have two CEOs going forward, for example there are places we can be more efficient as a combined company and essentially, we were a growing company continuing to add employees, GW is a growing company continuing to add employees. Sometimes by putting the companies together, we’re going to need to add – still need to add employees, but not as many as we each would have needed to add individually. So, it’s savings like that.

Thanks.

Your next question comes from the line of Graig Suvannavejh of Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.

Great. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking my question. It’s on Zepzelca and I just wanted to revisit the growth that you’re seeing thus far. So at 8% to 9% quarter-over-quarter growth over the past several quarters, is it fair to assume that as a steady-state base case assumption. That’s what we should be thinking about, or perhaps even slightly moderating as we look over the next several quarters. And as a follow-up to that, when would you suggest that we consider the potential for any meaningful potential acceleration in that growth dynamic? And if I could sneak in another question just around expectations around the launch trajectory of Rylaze and how would you suggest we consider modeling at least the initial uptake curve? Thanks so much.

Yes. So, Dan, maybe I’ll let you take the Zepzelca growth question first?

Sure. Yes. So I think we still see growth and opportunity for penetration in the second line of course, as we move in the second line patients, who then had prior exposure to Zepzelca, if they go on to third or fourth line will not be candidates and we did have at the beginning of the launch some bolus of patients, who are in later lines of therapy. The good news about increasing the rate of adoption second line is obviously those patients can benefit more from the therapy, particularly as we move into patients with more platinum sensitivity. And then even beyond that as we start to get clinical data from the first line study and the real-world studies, it will help give confidence to use the drug more broadly. So that’s what I would say, it’s a little too early to – we’re not giving forward guidance, but we do see continued growth in the brand going forward.

Yes. On Rylaze expectations, it’s important that we now re-establish confidence in the marketplace that any patient that needs access to on Erwinia asparaginase after they show a hypersensitivity reaction to E. coli-derived asparaginase can get the product. As Rob said, we’re working to update the label over time with different dosing flexibility. But, really we think we’ve given people the opportunity not only to treat their patients, but to really treat them with a product that was designed to provide the best coverage of active enzyme above threshold levels during the dosing interval. That’s been our goal is best therapy for patients. We will work to establish that credibility quickly. We mentioned at the time of launch, we had a year’s supply available. So we want people to know they don’t need to worry about it. The ordering procedure is easier for Rylaze than it had been with the predecessor product, given some of the issues we had to deal with there. The NCCN adding it so quickly to Guidelines was very helpful to us. COG’s partnership during development and their awareness through the clinical trials of where we were with COG associated physicians doing most of the prescribing for this product. All will help, but we’re just getting started. We’ll have more to say over the months to come. Recall that at the time of our launch there was limited Erwinaze supply in the marketplace that is out there now as well for at least a little while. So we’ll see, we believe a transition here as people become aware of the new product and what we think are some of the benefits of the way we develop the product and it’s high quality and reliable supply. Dan anything else you want to add on expectations in the near-term?

No, I think you covered it well. I mean, obviously, we’re going to be supplementing the current indication with additional data as we expand to Monday, Wednesday, Friday IV and then of course get the product to the market outside the U.S., in Europe, Japan and other regions. And some of those regions like Japan, we never had product availability or the quality that could support the introduction into those markets.

Okay. Thanks Bruce. Thanks. Dan.

Your next question comes from the line of Greg Fraser. Your line is open.

Good afternoon, folks. Thanks for taking my question. For the physicians who have not broadly adopted Xywav, has it been more about hesitancy to switch patients who are stable on Xyrem or some other reasons that you heard?

Dan, do you want to take that?

Sure. Yes, I mean, it’s a little different for everybody, but new product launches there’s obviously slow adopters and faster adopters. The good news is that the faster adopters were high volume prescribers, more associated with the KOLs and aware of the benefits with the ODE it’s clearly gives some win that the sales as we go into offices, including kind of the lower volume offices. And then some of these physicians are a little more reluctant to take a stable patient or at least wait till the patients up for prescription. I think as physicians are gaining increasing experience and we have these high-volume practices, some of which have largely adopted Xywav, they can see the same great efficacy and it’s easy to transition the patients dose for dose over. And so the peer to peer discussion will also be beneficial for penetrating into the offices where Xywav has not yet been adopted or hasn’t been fully adopted.

Rob, anything you want to add on this one?

Yes. I would just say from the anecdotes that we’re hearing from the medical staff in the field is that there is no issues that when they talk to physicians about the importance of lowering sodium in narcolepsy patients for this lifelong therapy. There is a lot of receptivity and especially, I would say since the granting of ODE and the FDA’s statements. So, it’s really resonating well and I think it’s probably a matter of time.

Great. Thank you.

Your next question comes from the line of David Steinberg of Jefferies. Your line is open.

Thanks. I have two questions, one, very near-term related and one longer-term. So first in the near-term question. Next week is your PDUFA date for Xywav in IH and I’m just curious, are you in labeling discussions or have you concluded labeling discussion? I assume you are in them or have concluded them. Can you confirm that? And then secondly, just a longer-term tax rate question. At the beginning of the year, you guided to 16% to 18% pre-GW and upon closing pretty significant cut in the range of 300 basis points to 13% to 15% at least for this year, obviously that reflects the mix shift to Epidiolex with the UK based tax jurisdiction. But obviously with Xywav growing rapidly and again a more favorable tax jurisdiction, as well as a number of NOLs from DW, should we assume that the 13% to 15% tax rate is the new normal longer-term? Or were there some one-offs, just for this year and that that tax rate will be above that 13% to 15% starting next year? Thanks.

David, I’ll take the first part about the PDUFA date upcoming and then turn it over to Renee on tax matters. As Rob said, we think we’re right on track. We’re not going to get into, and generally don’t get into back and forth with the FDA, specifically, but things are progressing the way we expected and we’re looking forward to bringing Xywav to patients via IH, as soon as we can. Renee?

Yes. And on the tax side. So we have stated previously that when we look at our future product mix as we continue to diversify this group of products that we’re diversifying into is expected to have a favorable impact to our ETR and that’s based on a number of factors, IP, where product is manufacturer, other impacts related to our business. And there was as we shifted from the beginning of the year to coming out with our updated guidance in June. This shift downward to reflect both the addition of Epidiolex and then as we continue to look at that shift into our newer products with those products coming together those are the ones that carry a more favorable ETR. And of course, we also continue to look longer-term, while we’re not going to give a specific range here today. I would just say going forward as we continue to diversify and we’re building that portfolio of future products will continue to look at how we structure those in the most economically favorable way.

Great. Thanks.

Your next question comes from the line of Balaji Prasad of Barclays. Your line is open.

Hi. Good afternoon and thanks for the questions. Just a couple from me. Firstly on Sunosi, you [indiscernible] the sales team around February and March and also commented that there’s highly promotions and staff, thinking that we will probably see strong the number but, could you maybe take us through the progress achieved in the background on this. And also maybe revisit the overall market growth on longer term outlook that we have for 2025? Thanks.

Sure, I’ll take Sunosi. Yes. So we reaffirmed our field teams in nature that we’ve got a dedicated field team to call upon the Sunosi doctors and we do think it’s promotionally sensitive and with increasing restrictions getting lifted and more face to face interaction, we’re still below COVID levels in terms of the percentage of in-person versus virtual. So we’re seeing that continuing to increase and making sure that there is real awareness of Sunosi. For those physicians who have adopted it and for patients who have gone on the clinical profile really fits with what we saw in the clinical study. I think we are seeing sometimes for physicians who haven’t had experience yet that there is a – just a general reluctance are concern about market access with new branded therapies and given that we’ve got very good market access, it’s something we’re trying to address with more infield education. So overall 25% prescription growth, we continue to think that there is room for upside. We’re not updating kind of longer term potential but we do think it’s got sort of meaningful clinical benefits relative to the current wait promoting agents and stimulants that are being used.

Okay, operator I think that was the last question. So I’m going to conclude – just conclude by saying, we remain focused on our key objectives for 2021 and we’re excited about the progress of our transformation. I would say the first six months of this year has been a good demonstration of the power of our products, our platform and our people and we’re looking forward to continuing the momentum. I’d like to close today’s call by recognizing our Jazz colleagues including those who recently joined us from GW for their creativity, commitment and the strong sense of urgency that continues to fuel our success. I also want to thank our patients, our partners and shareholders for their continued confidence and support. We look forward to speaking with many of you at upcoming fall investor conferences. Thanks everyone for joining us today and stay well.

I will turn the call over to Dan Swisher for the closing remarks as well.

No, those were the closing remarks, operator sorry for any confusion. We’re all set.

Thank you so much. This concludes today’s conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.