Transcripts
Gilead Sciences, Inc. (GILD) Presents at BofA Securities 2023 Health Care Conference (Transcript)
Gilead Sciences, Inc. (NASDAQ:GILD) BofA Securities 2023 Health Care Conference May 9, 2023 2:20 PM ET
Company Participants
Andy Dickinson – CFO
Conference Call Participants
Geoff Meacham – Bank of America
Geoff Meacham
Welcome to the morning session of the BofA Healthcare Conference. So my name is Geoff Meacham. I’m the senior biopharma analyst. And we’re thrilled today to have Gilead Sciences. And up on stage with me is Andy Dickinson. Andy, welcome.
Andy Dickinson
Thank you. Great to be here. Thanks for having us.
Question-and-Answer Session
Q – Geoff Meacham
So Andy, let’s kick off with just following first quarter. Give us some perspective on kind of the guidance changes that you guys have made with respect to R&D and kind of what implications that has as kind of the expenses over the course of the year.
Andy Dickinson
Sure. Yes. Maybe I’ll start actually just by hitting kind of on the top line first and then going to expenses. I mean, again, it was an incredible quarter. Again, this is the fifth or sixth at least very strong quarter in a row for the business. You saw very strong performance from the base business.
Revenue, I think we are largely in line with the Street despite the fact that our COVID antiviral sales were lower than we — the Street expected, which means the base business did incredibly well. We saw 15% growth year-over-year in the base business. Part of that is that we changed the way that we manage inventory at the end of the year. Historically, we saw this big buildup in Q4 in anticipation of potential price increases and then a bleed in inventory in the first quarter. We’re doing a better job of utilizing inventory management agreements with the sub-wholesalers below the Big 3. So you saw less of an impact. So the 15% growth year-over-year is very strong. Part of that is a result of that. But again, we had guided to 4% to 6% growth for the base business for the year and saw really strong performance in the first quarter, which was exciting.
On the expense side, the R&D expenses did come in a little bit higher than we were expecting. I think we were clear. We took our guidance from high single-digit growth year-over-year to low double-digit growth year-over-year. Just to put it in perspective, for those of you that don’t know Gilead that well, historically, we — at least in my view, significantly underinvested in R&D. And even today by many standards, are underinvesting relative to competitors. I think we’re finally getting kind of to a healthier level of R&D spend. So we — you’ve seen significant growth over the last couple of years as we build out our portfolio. So it’s a good news, problem in that we’ve been pushing the clinical team very hard over the last couple of years to accelerate some of our studies, including our studies in HIV prevention and our Trodelvy studies. Trodelvy is our antibody drug conjugate targeting TROP2 that we’re studying in a variety of solid tumors, including lung cancer studies. It’s a very competitive space. So we want to move forward aggressively. So we saw a lot of progress. And in particular, in March, we saw a significant increase in enrollment in our PrEP studies, our prevention studies for lenacapavir. So we’ll manage it throughout the rest of the year. Again, I think when we — we also highlighted, Geoff, that we expect our R&D expense as a percentage of revenue to be in the low 20s percent, which again is on par with other companies in the sector. I think it’s a healthy spend. But it is going to require us to carefully watch expenses as we always do across the entire business, not just R&D, but SG&A in order to really make sure that we’re freeing up each incremental dollar for R&D investment.
Geoff Meacham
Yes. That’s helpful. Well, part of being able to invest in a higher R&D number is the health of your core HIV business, right? And so, over the course of COVID, there was some fits and starts and a lot of volatility, but Q3, Q4, Q1, you’re starting to see a rebasing of sort of back to normal trajectory of the business, right? So walk us through kind of how you think the balance of this year. And then what are the drivers that you would expect from a pricing and a share perspective, looking out beyond that?
Andy Dickinson
Sure. Yes. I mean the HIV business is doing incredibly well. I mean we did see, to Geoff’s point, again, just to step back, during COVID, we saw a slowdown in HIV treatment that was, frankly, a little bit unexpected. Typically, you’d expect patients that have HIV, will continue to get their medicine. We’ve seen a significant rebound over the last 4 or 5 quarters, and we’re now seeing the market growth that we expected. And what that means in HIV treatment in the United States, we grew 2% year-over-year in the first quarter. This is treatment. It’s a very big market. In Europe, the treatment market grew about 4% year-over-year in the first quarter. In HIV prevention, which is just at the very beginning of kind of this market being defined, even though therapeutics, including our Truvada, was approved almost 10 years ago for prevention, this market is still being defined and built out.
Prevention grew — the prevention market overall, I think, grew 19% year-over-year in the first quarter. Descovy, which is our 2-drug combination for prevention and treatment but used mostly in prevention grew 14% year-over-year. So it’s a very big growth market. We don’t expect that to change. So when you step back, the HIV market is very stable. It’s growing. Within that, starting with treatment, we have the absolute standard of care, which is a 3-drug combination called Biktarvy that includes bictegravir, which I think is the best integrated inhibitor in the market. This is a once-daily pill that is now 43% of the — the HIV patients in the United States, I believe, up from 40% a year ago, take Biktarvy in the United States. Gilead still across all of our treatment options has greater than 70% market share in the U.S. And we expect to launch a number of new treatment products for patients over the coming 4 or 5 years. Notably, once weekly oral combinations and then every 3 months and every 6-month injectable combinations, hopefully, subcutaneous injectable combinations that will drive additional growth in terms of our share of the market.
On prevention, as I said, the prevention market is growing substantially. We have the gold standard in Descovy, which again is a 2-drug combination used. It’s an oral pill that can be used every day. Some patients or people at risk of getting HIV use it intermittently. That has been growing substantially. We still have greater than 40% of market despite the fact that Truvada, our original drug in prevention is generic. There’s one long-acting competitor in the prevention market that has a long-acting intramuscular injection that has a very small percentage of the market. We don’t expect that to change.
The next step function change in prevention is our new novel capsid inhibitor called lenacapavir that is a single drug that is exquisitely potent. It is injected once every 6 months as a subcutaneous injection. This is a molecule that’s already approved in the most difficult-to-treat HIV patients, that was approved last year in Europe and the United States in highly treatment-experienced patients where physicians can use it for patients that have their viruses broken through to other treatment options, and they pick the other therapies they want to use it with. So again, this is not — this is — a lot of people think of an every 6-month subcutaneous prevention drug is something that is more theory than practice. It’s already approved. It’s real. We’ve proven that you can do it in the most difficult-to-treat patients, and we have these large Phase III studies underway for prevention that should read out later next year or the following year. So it’s really the beginning of another growth cycle for us in HIV from our perspective. That was a long answer, sorry.
Geoff Meacham
No, no worries. So let’s talk about that. So you look at long-acting injectables, so lenacapavir for prevention. You do have — you’re right, you have a generic in Truvada and the Descovy is sort of the next gen and PrEP. Would you expect there to be a difficult sort of payer conversations about risk benefit, cost benefit, obviously, convenience factor is pretty dramatic with 2 injections a year. But do we have more work to do beyond the Phase IIIs for lenacapavir in PrEP to help kind of sell the profile if you will?
Andy Dickinson
Yes, I don’t think so. But I mean, there’s always work to do with payers, right? But I don’t think so. And the reason is that if you look at the studies that one of the other companies in the space that again this is these who has product called Apretude that’s every month or every 2-month subcutaneous injection. Their studies demonstrated clearly, even though we think that the product is more challenging for patients given it’s the painful injection given every 1 or 2 months. But what they showed clearly is that for patients that don’t take the pill every day, which unfortunately, is a lot. If you take the pill every day, our study showed — in other studies that you prevent 99% prevention of — or 99.9% prevention of transmission of HIV. If you don’t take it every day, you don’t see that. And so what these showed, and I think we will show in our PrEP studies with lenacapavir is that for the patients, which is a lot of people at risk of getting HIV that don’t take the pill every day, you see a substantial benefit for ensuring compliance by having the long-acting, which means that you see much better outcomes in terms of better prevention of the transmission of the virus at the end of the day, which is worth a lot. As you know, a lifetime of HIV therapy is incredibly expensive. So we’ll always have those discussions with payers, and I think if we see what we expect to see in the PrEP studies.
Geoff Meacham
Got you. And so lenacapavir in the treatment setting, walk us through kind of where we are today with your offerings. It’s — I mean, it’s such a good drug that it’s difficult to find a drug that kind of can match it.
Andy Dickinson
Yes. In terms of potency, right? It’s an incredible molecule. First of all, it’s the first HIV capsid inhibitor ever approved. As I said earlier, it is already approved for treatment. It can be used in combination with the physician’s choice of other antivirals for these patients that have developed resistance to most of the standard treatment options. The data — the Phase III data was incredible. The challenge is some people have described it as a unicorn because it’s so incredibly potent that you can have a very small amount of the drug that’s injected, and you still have therapeutic levels after 6 months. That said — and the other beauty of lenacapavir is, it can be formulated as an oral, a once-a-day oral, a once-weekly oral, a once monthly potentially or a subcu injection. So that is all very clear. The hard part for treatment, not prevention, but for treatment is to find other molecules that have similar qualities, and that’s what Geoff is alluding to. So we have 9 programs in Phase I studies or soon to be in Phase I studies. I think of partner agents that could be paired with lenacapavir in a combination for treatment. So 8 of those 9 programs are wholly owned to Gilead. One of them is Merck’s islatravir, which is moving forward at a lower dose in a once-weekly oral combination. So we’ll know a lot in the next 6 to 9, 12 months in terms of what the Phase I studies look like for the suite of molecules that we’re moving forward. Half of those molecules that are in Phase I are moving into Phase I are integrase inhibitors, which is currently the standard of care, including our bictegravir, which is part of Biktarvy that I mentioned earlier. So we’ll have a lot of data. My expectation would be that we likely within a year, have a once-weekly pill long-acting formulation of an integrase inhibitor, most likely together lenacapavir in an oral formulation. And I would expect that at some point, if not this year or next year or beyond, we have a doublet that — that every 3 or every 6 months subcutaneous. But we’ll know a lot more in terms of which specific assets out of those 9 are going to be moving forward at the end of this year.
Geoff Meacham
And just following up on that, from your market research, when you look U.S. versus Europe, if you had an every 3-month or 6-month doublet regimen in treatment, what type of share do you think that — is that a 50%? Is it a 75% — is it dramatic in terms of the — it’s — I mean, the evolution of the [indiscernible].
Andy Dickinson
Yes, great question. It is dramatic, and it all depends on what the doublet looks like at the end of the day. So if you truly have an every 6-month doublet where the efficacy is on par with Biktarvy, the standard of care, the gold standard and you don’t have significant injection site reactions or safety issues, you — our market research today suggests that in treatment, 50% of patients would want that every 6-month subcutaneous injection. For those of you that follow like HUMIRA, in the INI space, think of a very simple, painless injection. But instead of every 2 weeks, it’s once every 6 months. So a big portion of the HIV market would move to the every 6-month doublet. If it’s every 3 months, it’s probably less than 50%, but it’s still a lot. The once-weekly pill, there’s a big portion of patients that — so let’s say, 50% of patients today say, look, I like to take a pill every day because I know I’m doing something to treat my infection, a big portion of those may go to the once-weekly pill. And then the other thing I’d say is a lot — this is all kind of in a vacuum today. When you really have an every 6-month 2-drug regimen, if it’s as good as Biktarvy, at the end of the day, you could see even substantially more people moving to it over time, and that becomes entrenched as the absolute standard of care.
Maybe the other point that’s important, Geoff, that we talk about is in prevention, outside of treatment, you should see the entire market or a very big — I’m overstating it, but a — a very big portion of the market move to the every 6-month subcutaneous. So with our Phase III studies if that’s positive, the vast majority of people that are at risk of getting HIV would likely prefer or their physicians would prefer that they just have an every 6-month subcutaneous injection that ensures compliance and reduces even further the risk of them getting HIV. So the PrEP market and the treatment market will be different in terms of the uptake of long actings.
Geoff Meacham
Right. And when you look outside the U.S., though, is the cost benefit on either one PrEP or treatment, how is that different, you have to talk to single payers across Europe and there are lots of considerations though?
Andy Dickinson
Yes. I don’t — it shouldn’t be that different in the long run. I think in — what Geoff’s alluding to in PrEP today, there’s more challenges in Europe, even though we’ve demonstrated, and others have demonstrated this incredible benefit to people at risk of getting HIV, especially given that Truvada is now generic, there’s less of a push for prevention. Again, I think the every 6-month subcutaneous where you ensure a compliance and you show that added benefit, will justify uptake in Europe as well as the United States. Most of the PrEP market today is in the United States, and we don’t — that is going to continue to be a very strong market. You should also see substantial uptake in Asia as well as Japan is a great example of a market that we would expect to see substantial uptake. So I think from a payer perspective, both for treatment and PrEP, we think we’re going to build a very strong record in Europe, U.S. and Asia. We’ll have a lot of data over the next couple of years that will underpin those arguments, as you know.
Geoff Meacham
Right. And with your success in hep C with curative regimens, how much of a priority would you say HIV cure is? And there’s been a lot of science that has brought forth a different — a couple of different mechanisms, but it hasn’t really been, I would say, by any stretch like some signals there, right?
Andy Dickinson
Yes, it’s really hard. I mean, it’s incredibly hard, right? I mean, even when we talk about cure for hepatitis B and HIV, they are orders of magnitude more difficult than what our team did in hepatitis C, which is incredible. But we have a large HIV cure research program, probably the largest in the world. That’s not going to change. We are completely committed to ending the HIV epidemic. We’re confident that if we get there, we can figure out a business model that works. And unfortunately, I think we are a long way away from getting there for HIV cure. So there’s a lot of things that we and others are looking at, but there’s nothing that we see today that is a pragmatic or realistic approach in the next decade or beyond. So a lot of work to do. We will continue to invest. But for now, we’re thankful that we have these incredible options for patients that are either at risk of getting HIV or actually have HIV.
Geoff Meacham
Let’s switch gears to the oncology portfolio. So the — you mentioned Trodelvy upfront. You guys have had a lot of commercial success in HER2 patients. So let’s talk about the competitive dynamics within HER2. It’s been a topic of a lot of investor kind of anxiety, but it doesn’t look like your growth has really moderated.
Andy Dickinson
Yes. No, Trodelvy is doing incredibly well, right? Commercially, we’re really excited to roll out additional data over the next year in HER2. Look, I think what’s really happening is the people are starting to get a sense, not just from our data, but from the Daiichi Sankyo or Astra data within HER2. You’re going to see a slew of TROP2 targeting ADC data from us and competitors. This year, it’s becoming clear that the ADCs are outstanding therapeutic options for patients as an alternative to traditional chemotherapies. They are more targeted, more effective, safer, easier to tolerate. There are going to be differences in terms of the side effect profile. The — in HER2 data, just like the Trodelvy data in breast cancer is fantastic. There’s room for both of them. We are seeing — we’re the only ADC approved in breast cancer, if I remember correctly, that is not limited by IHC status, so HER2 expression. So we are seeing use in IHC-0, and IHC-1 kind of low HER2 expressers. The launch has gone great in the United States so far. We’re excited to launch in Europe as well, hopefully later this year. And — so it’s going to a well, and we think this is just the beginning. I think that’s the key, whether you’re talking about lung cancer, where there’s also going to be competition or breast cancer within HER2. There’s room for multiple agents, and I think the ADCs across the board are going to oncology therapy across many solid tumors.
Geoff Meacham
Right. What does the science tell you about TROP2 in lung cancer that kind of gives you confidence in success for Trodelvy? I agree, I mean it’s not like — it’s not a zero-sum game. There are plenty of assets in lung that are all commercially successful.
Andy Dickinson
Yes, exactly. I think that most important thing with TROP2 and why not only we, but AstraZeneca and Merck and others are so excited about TROP2 antibodies — ADCs is that TROP2 as a target is broadly expressed across most solid tumors. So it is the rare antigen that has broad expression, and that’s why you see the incredible data from Trodelvy in triple-negative breast cancer, game-changing data, incredible data in the hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative, which is again, very different than triple-negative and in bladder cancer. You also see proof of concept. We have small data sets from Immunomedics in lung cancer that we were excited about when we did the acquisition. We’re going to roll out a lot of data over the next 12 months that we’re — we’ll be excited to share and then others will do the same thing. I’ll come back to lung cancer in a second.
We also have a small data set in endometrial cancer that I’d highlight that’s going to be shared at ASCO that I think will further help people understand that TROP2 antibodies have very broad potential. The other thing that’s exciting is that these antibodies are likely to move up in lines of therapy. So we started in very late stage, very severe patients, but many chemotherapy agents, as many of you know, are used in first line either in combination with PD-1 or other agents. And there’s no reason to believe that the TROP2-directed ADCs or other ADCs won’t move up in lines of therapy if they’re tolerable. And that’s where we think Trodelvy really stands out is that at least so far, the side effect profile of Trodelvy is very different than some of the other ADCs and it looks more like a traditional chemotherapy in terms of the neutropenias and diarrhea that oncologists know how to manage. Some of the other ADCs have shown higher rates of interstitial lung disease. We’ll have to see kind of how that all plays out in the clinical data, especially as you move up into earlier lines of lung cancer, that could be really important for physicians in terms of the risk-benefit profile. So a lot of data to come in the next 12 to 24 months, but it’s a pretty exciting time for us.
Geoff Meacham
And in your oncology portfolio, so not yet talking about Yescarta and the cell therapy business, but TIGIT, so in solid tumors, talk a little bit about that as a mechanism. You guys have a lot of confidence in the mechanism, and it’s — there’s some promising attributes, but you guys have had some pretty good data.
Andy Dickinson
Yes. No, we have. So TIGIT, we have an anti-TIGIT antibody, actually 2 of them, but one is further advanced that are partnered with a company called Arcus that many of you are familiar with. We had Phase II data, a number of interim data cuts that we’ve shared together with Arcus. The last one was shared at the end of last year at an ASCO virtual plenary and will have updated data for the Phase II. It’s a large Phase II study. So for those of you that followed the Roche data a couple of years ago, they got everyone so excited about TIGIT as an add-on to PD-1 in lung cancer, this is a much bigger data set of 150 patients with a PD-1 versus a doublet PD-1 plus TIGIT, and we also have a triplet arm of 50 patients that is PD-1 TIGIT antibody and an adenosine inhibitor — adenosine receptor blocker that we’ll see what that looks like. But the early data is encouraging. And what we believe it shows, and I think Merck feels the same way about their data set and Roche from theirs is that TIGIT is additive to PD-1, and it doesn’t add additional toxicity. The question that hasn’t been answered yet is how additive is it and what does it mean for the future treatment landscape. I think you’ll get more data this year from us and Roche, obviously. The early and encouraging PFS data that we saw, the other question is, does that convert to an OS benefit in the long run? So that will all be established we believe in the next 12 to 18, 24 months with this data set. But yes, we are encouraged, and it’s still early days, so more to come. But that’s another way that we’re going to — we believe we have a real potential to win in terms of building out our oncology business.
Geoff Meacham
Right. So when you focus now on the Kite business, so you guys have had a number of wins with respect to establishing the technology, very consistent growth. And now you’re looking at sort of moving up the treatment paradigm as the driver. Where do you think, Andy, we are sort of on a global basis with infrastructure to be able to infuse the access — the whole commercial to meet the backdrop to meet demand?
Andy Dickinson
Yes, I think we’re in the first innings is the answer. I mean, I think it is a really promising and encouraging time. So if you just step back in CAR T. We have data in DLBCL, including second-line data head-to-head against stem cell transplant, which is the standard of care, showing an incredible overall survival benefit. That data, the full overall survival data will be shared with ASCO this year. There was data from another company that has a BCMA antibody partnered with a company in China that was leaked last week that seems to show similar incredible benefit to patients in second line in multiple myeloma. This is — in our view, we believe 5 years ago or 5.5 years ago when we acquired Kite, that CAR T was in the very beginning of changing treatment, especially in some — in the hematological cancers, maybe in solid tumors and some INI diseases and it was going to take decades to kind of evolve. And so we’re still in the early stages.
What the Kite team has done really well for us is they were thinking ahead and building out both viral vector manufacturing capacity internally and externally and manufacturing centers globally, where a lot of the 2 or 3 other companies that are in CAR T, many of them have 1 manufacturing center. We have 3 that are approved, 2 in the United States, 1 in Los Angeles, 1 in Maryland, and then 1 in Amsterdam or outside of Amsterdam. They’re all fully staffed. They’re all really running. We’re already starting to implement some automation in the center in Maryland, which will really help over time.
So to your question, we can meet demand. We have issues with viral vector. We can meet the demand that’s there. And this is going to be a slow, steady, continuous build as you see continued clinical data, improvements in manufacturing. And I think over time, our expectation is that the cell therapies will become absolutely established as the absolute standard of care and whether it’s second line DLBCL, maybe even in first line in some high-risk patients even though R-CHOP works pretty well for most patients, second-line multiple myeloma. This is — it’s early days. But the other thing to your question on infrastructure, hospitals are still adjusting to and opening up additional space in their transplant centers for this. So it’s all coming together and it will be slow and steady. But we — I think we had $1.4 billion in sales last year. We’ve made significant progress on improving our gross margins over time and becoming more efficient. And I see that, again, it’s just the beginning, but it’s a really, really exciting time to be in cell therapy from our perspective.
Geoff Meacham
And with the successes that you’ve had in liquid tumors, if you look, a lot of companies in the cell therapy space talk about cell therapy for solid tumors or even autoimmune indication, how much of a priority is that for Gilead versus just continuing to add value to the existing franchising?
Andy Dickinson
Well, I think it’s both. I mean they are priorities. The here and now is hematological cancers with the incredible data and the competition. You can build a thriving business, and we have, and we’ll continue to do that just with the hematological cancer focus. And I think the Kite team again deserves a lot of credit for really stepping back after the acquisition, we did a lot of deals to add different things in solid tumor and saying, you know what, actually, we just need to focus here right now. We are investing in solid tumor programs. We have one program in the clinic. We’ve done a number of partnerships. We like the data that Geoff’s alluding to, there’s some data out of Germany in lupus, if I remember correctly, severe lupus using a CD19, CAR T, where they appear to cure a number of very severe lupus patients. I think it was 8 patients, but exciting. So we will explore those areas. We’ll look at moving into different areas, but just in hematological cancer, which is the here and now and can be a huge business, and I think of like what Celgene did in defining the multiple myeloma market. I mean that’s what Kite has as an opportunity just in hem/onc. And then, yes, I do think people will crack the nut in solid tumors and INI.
In solid tumors, the one caveat is we think that probably involves combinations of cell therapies and more traditional agents that maybe open the tumor microenvironment to the T cells or if you’re using macrophages or whatever cell type you’re using that can open it up. But it’s just going to take longer to get there, and it probably requires some combinations would be our guess.
Geoff Meacham
And there’s likely still a lot of science that has yet to be sort of written or disclosed…
Andy Dickinson
Absolutely. I mean it’s early days. And the other really exciting thing from our perspective is there’s an incredible amount of research and innovation happening globally in China, in particular. I mean, China was really a leader in cell therapy. It’s not surprising thus that you see the legend construct came out of China. There’s another recent deal that another company partnered with the company in China. So there’s a lot happening in China, a lot in the United States and Europe. Globally, there’s a lot happening here that’s really going to move the sector forward over the coming years. And we think that Kite is positioned to be kind of the partner of choice for many of those companies, similar to the Arcelix deal that we did with the BCMA candidate that we’re excited about.
Geoff Meacham
Right. And last question here at a bigger picture, when you think about BD, historically, you’ve built the hem/onc business with a number of deals, and now you’re seeing the benefit of expanding that even more. Where does this rank kind of in your capital priorities affiliate?
Andy Dickinson
I think it’s really important. I mean, again, we have gone from having a pretty thin pipeline to, I think, one of the best pipelines and most diverse pipelines in the industry. And we’re not going to rest. So what — we announced another exciting deal this morning where we are acquiring a small company called XinThera in San Diego with a PARP1 inhibitor in particular that we’re excited about combining it. You’re going to continue to see deals like that. We’re going to continue to do BD. But we have a much stronger internal research and development arm as well, so you should see greater balance going forward in terms of what we pull forward from our internal research and what we’re pulling in from external. So when we think about capital allocation, it is focusing, first and foremost, on R&D and innovation, both internal and external balance with the BD. You won’t see the same level of BD activity that you’ve seen over the last 4 years, I’d expect because we were incredibly busy rebuilding and building out the pipeline. That doesn’t mean that we’re not going to be active. We are, and you saw that today.
And then, we’re focused on the dividend. We’re committed to the dividend and growing the dividend over time. Investors have seen that. We’ve got great cash flow profile that we can keep investing in the dividend. And then finally, we’ll look at things like paying down debt. We’re very comfortable with our gross debt level today. And then finally, share repurchases. But BD will continue to be a big piece of capital allocation for sure.
Geoff Meacham
Great. Well, thank you very much, Andy.
Andy Dickinson
Thank you.