Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Sobi presentation. Throughout the call, all participants will be in listen-only mode, and afterwards there will be a question and answer session. I will now hand over to Guido Oelkers, CEO. Please go ahead. Yeah. Thank you so much and welcome to the Q4 webcast of Sobi. As per usual, I go straight to the forward-looking statement and you just take note of it, not going to read it through, but just be aware. Today I'm going to be joined by my colleagues, Henrik Stenqvist, the CFO, and Ravi Rao, the Head of R&D. With this, let's go to the meat of the presentation on slide four. Basically, when you look at it, we have expanded our opportunity horizon for Sobi. I think it's fair to say that we are, this year, that we were in 2020, but also in 2021, in a transition mode, and we are transitioning Sobi to a new reality. During this transition, we are experiencing headwinds. Foremost COVID, we will talk about this more in the context of the guidance for 2021, but also the significant appreciation of the Swedish krona, which makes prior year comparisons more difficult forward-looking. When you think about it, you come into the 2020, I think, we were quite happy with the overall performance. We grew the top line for the year at 8% and at constant currency and have an EBITDA margin of 41%. Q4, we had even an EBITDA margin of 48%. I think for me, as underlying indicators, very important is that our core business, meaning the hematology business and the immunology business, both businesses were growing double digit, 13% hematology and 16% immunology. Basically, the consolidation of part of our discontinued specialty care business, respectively the decline of Orfadin, basically would compress the overall growth rate. At the same time, we were able to forge two strategic partnerships that propel our pipeline but also allow us to further broaden our international footprint and prepare us for sustainable and long-term growth. These partnerships are with Apellis regarding ex-U.S. territories of systemic pegcetacoplan and the global rights of SEL-212. When you go to the next slide, and we just elevate the discussion a little bit. How to think about Sobi also now moving in the future and how to measure progress of our strategy. Essentially, we have two vectors of growth. We want obviously and this is regarding its portfolio dimension and obviously its geographic dimension. When you think about it, our core business till 2025, and we have provided guidance in this regard as part of the Capital Market Day, we do not expect too much growth from it anymore. This is an important cash generator for the company, but we don't attach too much growth to it. Where we see growth is with regard to our late-stage pipeline and our launch products in Europe and in North America, foremost. We see significant growth opportunities on a relative scale, but also meaningful in absolute terms in the what we call international, meaning non-U.S., non-European markets, and we have set up quite a few new subsidiaries in this regard. When you come to the progress that we have made in the area of pipeline and the development of our portfolio. We have set out at the Capital Market Day that we said we want to have 32 launches in key geographies, and we define those key geographies by North America, Europe, and key international markets for us, meaning Russia, China, and Japan. We basically also said at the Capital Market Day in December that we would have four of those launches next year, meaning in 2021. Now, in the meantime, we have retained the approval of Elocta in Russia and are in a good way to launch the product. We have obtained the approval, as recently communicated, for Kineret in Russia. We have retained the approval of Doptelet in ITP and CLD. We submitted Doptelet in Russia and could expect or hope for an approval this year. We have submitted pegcetacoplan in PNH in Europe with a potential approval also for this year. We are progressing SEL-212 in phase III, as we have outlined, and for BIVV001, we completed the enrollment in partnership with our partners, Sanofi, the enrollment of phase III. Let's say what you can expect from us this year is going to be the commencement of our rheumatology HLH study, and that we start enrollment also into the acute graft-failure study. We have an ongoing study which we think could be very interesting, which is an ISS, but of a large scale, with centers in Greece and in Italy called SAVE-MORE, that will have a readout in Q2 2021 and may or may not have implications for the indications of Kineret. In coming to the international expansion, essentially portfolio drives obviously also the further international expansion. I think you should think about our international expansion in three phases that are overlapping. In the first phase, now Russia, where we make significant progress already this year. China, let's say, hopefully getting approvals this year, then becoming more material in terms of economics the year after. Japan, we hope to retain approvals in 2022. Becoming more material as of 2023. With this having said, I would like to dive now into our portfolio, and we start with hematology. I think important to note is, as I already outlined, the strong double-digit growth of our hematology franchise. In difficult environment, Elocta strengthened its position in the key markets. What it means is also that we retained our competitiveness. We improved our share in terms of patients by 10%. We, let's say this in view of consumption reductions due to COVID, which makes the year-on-year comparison a little bit more tricky. We made our first impact with Doptelet in 2020. More specifically, let's go to the products and starting with Elocta. When you think about it, 10% patient growth. Obviously, this has been eaten up to a large degree by the reduction of consumption. Essentially, I think you need to think, when you think about Elocta moving forward, and I think this is important also when we talk about guidance. There are three vectors, of course, that drives this product. Obviously, patient growth. The second is consumption per capita. The third is price. For now, let's say in 2020, we have been able at constant currency to still drive growth by 3%, even though, let's say the patient numbers have increased by 10. We have offset those, but the product is competitive. In the case of Alprolix, that difference is not as much and not as high. Here we have driven growth by 25% in terms of new patients. We have also had an impact of decreased consumption per capita. Given the fact, though, that Alprolix is a once-a-week therapy, that effect is on a relative scale, less pronounced. Alprolix making good progress. Let's turn to Doptelet. With Doptelet, I think I'm quite happy that we made a significant impact to the U.S. market. First-year sales, essentially, its full-year sales anyway, is SEK 587 million. We have now 7% market share in the ITP market in the U.S. The product makes also good progress, even though it's a sales-only-to market in China. We have obtained, as already outlined, ITP approval in Europe, and the first launch country is going to be Germany. We hope that we can see then more significant sales from international markets during the course of this year. As obviously, we want to see much more progress in the U.S. Now turning the page to immunology. Here, they have, let's say, the overall immunology franchise made also significant progress, 16% growth for the year at constant currency. This obviously, as you can see, immunology very much affected or impacted by Synagis. I think it's fair to say that the incidence of RSV, due to less international travel and also social distancing, has been heavily impacted as an effect of COVID in the U.S. We were very excited to end the year, let's say, with over $290 million. We think that this is something, when you look forward, let's say particular to the second part of the season, where you have to be a little bit cautious. Kineret and Gamifant, let's say Gamifant making significant progress also now, particular in Q4, and Kineret as well, and we'll talk more about this. Coming to Kineret, we had a fantastic Q4 growth. It's clear that Kineret, very many physicians see more benefits of Kineret in COVID-related indications. Patients with hyperinflammation that are about to be admitted into an ICU setting. There seems to be a benefit when you look at the recent publications. That has basically propelled additional growth of this product. For the year, the 32%, very happy also that we made some progress with other indications, with DIRA, as we reported on FMF earlier last year. This showed that Kineret is in a good way. We are quite anxious to see how the ongoing studies that are currently being pursued will turn out. There are two studies that are of primary importance, [audio distortion] cooperation and SAVE-MORE that I alluded to earlier. Next slide, please. To Gamifant. With Gamifant, we had a very strong Q4. Washed out the pricing effect now to a large degree and have been able to strategically progress the product, increase the number of patients considerably, got also some benefits from the wait. We have submitted in China and very satisfied with the progress of Gamifant. Let's say even though it's still a little bit lumpy, but we hope that we can transition all the product into a new reality. On this note, I would like to ask now Ravi to share his thoughts on some of our R&D projects and bring them more alive. Thank you. Thank you, Guido. On this side, you see our pipeline and you see the broad range of products that you've heard about over the last few minutes. Just a reminder that primarily focused in immunology and hematology and an overlap between the two, and many of our medicines are being investigated in multiple indications. Since the last presentation, we've had success for the approval of Kineret in Russia and the ITP approval for Doptelet in Europe. We have pegcetacoplan and Gamifant under review. All of those things demonstrate progress consistent with our strategic drivers and our future growth. For today, I'd like to focus primarily on pegcetacoplan and also on BIVV001. If we go to the next slide, please. We recently commenced a partnership with Apellis for pegcetacoplan, which inhibits the C3 component of complement and really has the potential to elevate standard of care in paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria or PNH. The PEGASUS trial reported out last year, and this was a head-to-head trial, which evaluated pegcetacoplan against the C5 inhibitor eculizumab. It consisted of 80 patients who had a suboptimal response to eculizumab, and after a run-in period, were randomized in a one-to-one fashion to receive either pegcetacoplan or eculizumab. The primary readout was after 16 weeks of randomized treatment. The patients were then able to cross over from eculizumab to pegcetacoplan, and the trial continued through to a total treatment period of 48 weeks. I'll show you results from both parts of this study. Moving on to the next slide, please. The results of the study at 16 weeks were highly significant and are summarized on this slide. The primary endpoint was to examine superiority of pegcetacoplan over eculizumab. This was highly significant with a P value of less than 0.0001. Not only that, there was a large increase in the hemoglobin of 3.8 grams per deciliter compared to that seen with eculizumab. In addition to the hemoglobin numbers, there were meaningful clinical improvements in those patients. 85% of patients were transfusion-free versus 15% of patients on eculizumab. 71% of patients normalized their LDH, which is a good marker of underlying hemolysis, versus 15% on eculizumab. The patients felt better with a 12-point improvement over eculizumab in the FACIT-Fatigue score. We were very excited by these results, which demonstrate a significant improvement in response to pegcetacoplan over eculizumab. If we go to the next slide. As I mentioned, the patients were able to enter a long-term open label extension, and the results of that are here. The graph shows hemoglobin over time through the running period, the initial randomized control period, and then an open label extension on the right-hand side, showing times from baseline to week 48. Pegcetacoplan is in orange, and eculizumab and crossover to pegcetacoplan is in blue. The first thing to note is the rapid increase in hemoglobin on pegcetacoplan is maintained and very consistent over the subsequent 48 weeks of treatment. I think this demonstrates that the effect seen is maintained, and that was reiterated by the patients also feeling better and having clinical improvement, as I mentioned earlier on. The blue line shows the patients who received eculizumab for the first 16 weeks and then crossed over to receive pegcetacoplan. You can see that crossover period in the middle of this chart in the gray. It's very clear to see that the hemoglobin then rose to similar levels and was maintained once the patients received pegcetacoplan. I should note that there was sustained improvement in terms of transfusion, fatigue, and other biological markers, and the safety profile was consistent between the two drugs and was maintained over time. These data really form the basis of a recent submission. The drug is under priority review with the FDA with an expected action date in May, and we expect EMA approval later in the year. If we move on to the next slide, I'd like to talk about BIVV001, or its new name, which we'll be referring to from now on, which is efanesoctocog alfa. As Guido mentioned, this is a collaboration with Sanofi, this is a bioengineered factor VIII providing extended once-week dosing and higher factor levels compared to existing therapies as well as non-factor therapies. The program consists of an adult and adolescent study, which has recently completed recruitment, as well as a pediatric study, the latter is required in combination with the adult study for approval in the European Union. The adult study is a 52-week study looking at annualized bleeding rate, we expect data in the first half of 2022. It has fast-track designation in the U.S. with submission hopefully later in 2022. We expect the first children to be recruited into the pediatric study very shortly, enabling recruitment and then approval in the EU in 2023 or perhaps early in 2024. In summary, there's very good progress with the pipeline, which are consistent with the growth drivers and the catalysts you heard about earlier on. This is very positive, both our short and medium-term ambition. With that, I'll hand over to Henrik to pick up the presentation. Thank you, Ravi, and good afternoon, everyone. We go to the financial summary for the quarter and the full year 2020. Revenues for Q4, as said, amounted to SEK 4,581,000,000. That corresponded to a decline of 2% at the constant currencies. Full-year revenues reached SEK 15,261,000,000, corresponding to a growth of 8% at CER, with double-digit growth in both hematology and immunology franchises. Hematology, consisting of the hemophilia Doptelet, showed a growth of 2% at CER for the quarter and 13% in 2020. In the quarter, Elocta declined by 10% at CER, while Alprolix grew at 8%. We continue to see patient growth across both products, but for Elocta, a reduced consumption per patient due to the pandemic, as we heard. Doptelet had a strong quarter with SEK 191 million in sales and a quarter-on-quarter growth of 24% in local currencies. At the end of the year, we were in preparation for the European ITP launch in 2021. In immunology, Q4 revenue increased by 6% at CER, with full-year revenue increasing by 16%. Kineret sales increased by 59% in Q4 and 35% for the year. We continue to see increased underlying demand across all regions, in addition, demand from COVID-19 had an impact in Q4 of roughly SEK 125 million, and for the full year, roughly SEK 250 million. Synagis sales of the quarter, SEK 1,432 million, a decline of 11% at CER due to very low virology levels as a result of COVID-19 measures. The decline was partially offset by improved dose adherence and improvements in the distribution system. As we look into Q1 2021, the impact from the COVID-19 pandemic on the RSV virology levels remains an uncertainty for the sales of Synagis for the rest of this season. Gamifant sales picked up in the quarter with revenues of SEK 263 million compared to SEK 110 million in Q3. The growth was driven both by new patients and increased duration of therapy offsetting the price reductions that we implemented earlier. The specialty care revenue declined by 54% to SEK 218 million as a result, both of generic impact for Orfadin and the discontinuation of products during the year. As we move on from revenue, we saw a gross margin of 81% in Q4 and 79% for the year, compared to 78% and 77% respectively in 2019. This is primarily driven by a favorable product mix, including the impact of Synagis in Q4, as well as cost reductions. Adjusted EBITDA reached close to SEK 2.2 billion for the quarter, corresponding to a margin of 48%. For the quarter, the margin was broadly in line with prior year of 49%. For the full year, the margin of 41% came out slightly behind last year's margin of 43%. This was driven by our increase in SG&A, particularly the full-year impact of the Dova commercial organization and launch efforts, as well as our international expansion in China, Japan, and Russia. The adjusted EBITDA in Q4 excludes the positive impact from the reversal of the CVR liability of SEK 399 million, which was related to the acquisition of Dova. Looking now into cash flow and debt. Operating cash flow in the quarter amounted to SEK 858 million for the quarter, almost doubling the number from Q3. Q4 is a seasonally weak quarter, mainly due to the increased accounts receivable coming from synergies. This becomes obvious when we look at the full year operating cash flow, which was SEK 5.2 billion. Finally, net debt increased by SEK 1 billion to SEK 13.7 billion, mainly because of the upfront payment of $250 million related to the license agreement with Apellis for pegcetacoplan. A net debt of SEK 13.7 billion corresponds to a leverage which is just about 2x the EBITDA, which is very comfortable. We maintain available liquidity of close to SEK 5 billion, signaling a continued position of financial strength for the opportunities ahead of us. With that, I say thank you, and back to you, Guido. Thank you so much, Henrik. Yeah, I'd like to round it off with the outlook. Before I start, I would like to provide you with some of the key assumptions to bring this a little bit into context, but also into relationship to what we guided on at the Capital Market Day. I think maybe start with synergies. Let's say on the next slide, yeah. Basically, synergies sales are very much skewed to the months of October, typically, and March. Now these are the RSV season sometimes starts earlier and then or lasts longer or is sometimes shifting. In December, we were still hoping that the virology would pick up during the second part of the season. Today, we do not see these indications, and hence our forecast is much more cautious for this season, not for the next season, which will start in, again, September of this year. Regarding Elocta, I think we need to just recognize that the prolonged lockdown leads to two developments. A, patients have less activity, many working from home offices. On the other hand, we have less face-to-face interactions with our target audience. As a consequence, we are less impactful to basically work alongside with physicians to make sure that patients are better protected and take advantage of the prolonged half-life of Elocta. Now, when you think forward-looking, we also realize that given the pressure on healthcare systems and increased competition, this has an effect of prices, and we anticipate price adjustments in various markets. When we go to the next slide, on the financial outlook, what we can see is that basically these two products are on a 2020 basis, around 48% of our total business, and obviously have therefore a significant impact also on our outlook. Therefore, hence we were more cautious and said, despite a lot of these positive developments with our launch products and our other portfolio, in Kineret, for instance, we thought that it is more prudent to be cautious and therefore be guided between SEK 14 billion and SEK 15 billion. Obviously this happens at the same time, as Henrik pointed out, where the currency, the Swedish krona, has appreciated and has therefore a negative effect on top line between 5%-7%. When you take the midpoint, this means that we are forecasting essentially at constant currency a growth from -2.5% to +4.5%. As we are believing in our pipeline, with 12 late-stage projects, with the expansion into international, where we think that some of these new activities that we have in China and Japan could become extremely meaningful over the years to come. We basically felt if you feel compelled to invest into our business, we gave you guidance already at the Capital Market Day that we would invest into our R&D expense line between 13%-15% on sales. There are two main drivers, one of them being SEL-212 and the other one being pegcetacoplan, let's say, that contribute obviously to these 12 late-stage projects. As I mentioned at the beginning, you see Sobi in a transition phase. Given the opportunities that are ahead of us, we think that we cannot leave these opportunities behind, and we need to take advantage of them and invest into them. Just to clarify this further, on page 27, our revenue outlook 14%-15%, basically giving you here very simplistically what it means at constant currency and basically how to use this in view of our actual results in 2020. Very clear we haven't lost confidence in our business, but we believe we need to invest into it. Yes, for 2021, we experienced two headwinds. It's a COVID-related effect, as pointed out, and it's a currency effect. Just basically elevating the thought process. In conclusion, we think when you look at this, what we have done with this company, we have increased the company from 2016 to 2020 by 2.7x. We have increased our earnings by 3.8x in this period of time. We believe that we have established ourselves with a potent track record. We have now two robust and diversified therapeutic areas. Henrik pointed out the cash flow, which we think is a very strong cash flow of our operating business. We have developed a significant pipeline. We have now today 12 late-stage projects. In 2017, we had none. We have significant catalysts, as we pointed out, let's say, for sustainable value creation during the course already of this year. With this, I would like to open the floor for Q&A. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, if you have a question for the speakers, please press zero one on your telephone keypad. We have a question from Christopher Uhde from SEB. Please go ahead. Hi there. Hi. I have a few questions. Sure. I guess I'll start on the guidance. I might ask this in a couple of different ways to just try to triangulate here. I guess if we start with Synagis, the prescription data, sales tracking data suggests that there is an effect potentially from wholesalers, and so possibly a stocking effect. I guess is part of the reason for how you feel that we may see a phasing of that relatively strong performance in Q4, in Q1 then? When it comes to Elocta, can you quantify or, well, I know you won't exactly do that, but can you give us some flavor on the impact of price pressure? How would you say what you've done so far and last year and so far this year in 2021, how would you say that compares with, let's say, what your predecessors did, how they reacted when you came on the market with Elocta? Also, how does the outlook in terms of pricing seem this year versus last year? Another way to put this, you said that there was 10% patient growth over the year, but 3% sales growth. How much of that delta was due to price cuts in the EU5? That's my first sort of question. Yeah. Thanks, Christopher. I hope I can remember all of these different angles. No problem. It came rise to the occasion. Let's start with Synagis. There was a stocking effect. We think it's around SEK 12 million. Always difficult to understand all the elements of potential of the different areas. This compares, this is basically the kind of reflex that these wholesalers respectively now in this year or last year were special distributors. We don't have wholesalers anymore. Pretty much in line, little bit less actually even than the year before. This is impacting, obviously, the first part now of the year. I think the primary driver is here that, when you look at the virology and you look at the CDC data, given that there is basically hardly any international travel anymore and social distancing, there's really not much virology that you can point to. Luckily, we are working only on 1% of the babies who are very exposed and fragile, and as a consequence, you're better safe than sorry. That's the reason why we were able to sell SEK 290 million over this year. What we fear is that obviously there's an impact during this part now of the season. Therefore, we want to be cautious and basically give you a cautious view here on how this is going to play out. Why do we think that in line with some of the epidemiologists that during the second part of this year, there is a normalization effect? Yeah. Let's say, that's really our view on synergies. With Elocta, the primary driver is indeed consumption. Pricing had a smaller effect this last year. Let's say, this consumption effect, you can see it very clearly right now, is an effect that really kicked in primarily with the emergence of COVID because less activity level. Also in some countries earlier this year, last year the access and with this a more cautious behavior basically that has perpetuated itself. Physicians are obviously not in favor of this. With them we will try to, let's say, ensure that patients take advantage of the profile of the Elocta and are better protected. Sometimes these joint bleeds you would see and the effect of it you only realize a few years later. It's something that we are quite concerned about and we try to correct. For this year, let's say part of our strategy is to try to take back part of this territory. I think it's realistic to see that our patient growth, let's say, is going to become more difficult, but we still believe that we can grow Elocta on a patient basis because the franchise is competitive and there are patients who would like to stay in that paradigm and looking forward primarily also then to BIVV001 which has a great promise. Basically, we think we will continue growing patients and we have no indications to believe any otherwise. What we see is now that the unit recovery per patient is not happening right now. Let's say, and as long as there's protracted lockdown and we don't have access as much to the physicians, it's going to be tough. What we also anticipate now is that pricing for this year will play a stronger role because we can anticipate price adjustments in a couple of markets that will be quite material. As a consequence, we will not have as much offsetting mechanism and that's the reason why we have been cautious. I've just looked at some of the data also in markets of our competitors via IMS. This is not a unique Sobi phenomenon. It's just that the profit pool as such is also affected therefore for effective consumption. In terms of price pressure, is it possible to give us a ballpark idea? Should we be expecting double-digit price decreases, mid-teens, something like that for the year on average? Yeah. Roughly, it could be double digit. It could be double digit. That's the reason why we have a more cautious approach. Okay. Sorry, just last on that particular point. Would we expect to see that from the beginning of the year or sort of progressing over the course of the year? Yeah. It will set in, let's say now some of these adjustments will set in as early as during the later part of Q1. Okay, great. My second question is about Gamifant. How do you explain the sharp increase in new patients and duration of therapy that you referenced? It's a very strong upswing in sales and in the past obviously there has been a discussion how much of this is just volatility from different patient sizes, weights, et cetera. To what extent does this reflect something more stable than we've previously seen? What can you say about. Yeah. Is this guidelines? Is this different patients besides just familial who are being treated? Are you getting more first-line patients, something like that? Yeah. And then I guess the- No, I think you. Okay. Yeah. No, you first. Sorry. Yeah, sorry. Can we get a little bit more detail on the rheumatologic HLH data and maybe when or where you plan to present it? I guess finally, is it possible to go for an EU decentralized pathway for approval for familial HLH? If not, why not? Yeah. Okay. Let's take it one step at a time. With regard to how to use this Q4. As much as I want, I cannot already claim no victory. I think, let's say we had a couple of patients that came. What I can tell you is that our team is much more systematic now about it, and it's basically a changing a bit the paradigm. It also changed, to be honest, the management. As a consequence now, we basically work with community and with physicians so that the patient understands the opportunity of the product and people understand better on how to diagnose primary HLH. Yeah. Because there were quite a few patients still missed, and simply because they got the wrong diagnosis. I think we are working with the community quite extensively now to improve this. Yeah. We haven't yet, I would say, been able to change guidelines. A number of projects ongoing, as I reported to earlier. This is not yet generating the traction. With regard to rheumatoid HLH, we have completed, as we reported, the MAS trial on that, and then we got feedback from FDA. As a consequence now, we are expanding the trial and with this have a shot on goal on a broader indication in rheumatological HLH. We are now feverishly working on the recruitment and how to accelerate this trial so that this may actually be more of a, for us in launch phase 2022 reality, but we are not yet there. Regarding, let's say Europe, we are working right now with a partner to understand how we could make Gamifant for patient needs available despite the negative view of EMA. Yeah. Because we think it is not responsible not to do so. Yeah. To make it very clear. Then maybe we have the time for three more questions if this is okay from someone else. I love this dialogue, let's say maybe we open the floor for some other. Yeah, for more. Yeah. I would say it's advised, yeah. Thank you, Christopher. If you have more questions- Yeah. Thank you very much. we can pick it up offline. Yeah. Thank you. We have a next question from Erik Hultgård from Carnegie. Please go ahead Yes. Hi. Thanks a lot for taking my questions. I had a few. First, touching again on the expected price pressure that you see here in 2021 for Elocta. My question is basically, is this something that is isolated to selected markets and should be seen more as sort of a one-off, or is this happening more broadly? What is actually triggering this intensified price competition? Is it related to the fact that HEMLIBRA has gained 22% market share in Europe now and that some of the companies operating feel more prone to be flexible on pricing? The comments on that would be really helpful. Secondly, on the dynamics within hemophilia A and specifically on the launch of HEMLIBRA, have you identified any patterns on what patients that are more prone to stay on factor products and what patients are more prone to switch? Whether that is something that is different from what you're seeing or what you've learned from the U.S. market. That would be all. Thank you. Thank you, Erik. The good news is that as you have seen, Roche didn't make so much progress in Q4 either. I think the pricing pressure, back to that point, is basically not the driver. The driver is more a certain budgetary pressure right now by payers and base business, the desire, let's say, to find opportunities for savings. That basically then they open up, it's a more targeted approach. It doesn't affect across board. In this case, now we are primarily driven by two markets. I don't think it's a general trend. At this stage, I can say it's really related to a small number of markets. The other thing is that obviously when you look at it, those patients who are more prone to stay on factor are those who obviously want to have an active life and as such want to control their life as opposed to forget about their disease. They are young patients because the data of HEMLIBRA are very limited, and then they are also compromised patients. These are the three groups. Let's say the difference between us and the U.S. situation is that we from the start positioned Elocta as a protective agent, not as a convenience drug. Let's say, so that's the reason why we still have net gains of patients even as we speak. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you. Our next question comes from Peter Engstedt from Handelsbanken. Please go ahead. Yes, good afternoon. Hi. Can you hear me? Yeah. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks for taking my question. I have three, and I have decided to jump into the helicopter and take a view from the above. With respect to your 2025 targets, at the CMD, you gave us some peak sales forecast for a couple of products, and you also sort of gave us an overall bridge that was sort of more high level related. I just wondered if you could give us a little bit more product-specific details on that target. Secondly, in terms of your appetite for further business development, according to my estimate, and I could be totally wrong, but I see double-digit growth in EPS, let's say, if you look four years forward over the next four years, and that growth only decelerating to single digits as we get into sort of late 2024, 2025. That does suggest that with the current assets, we should be able to do okay. Would it then be fair to say that you are not in a hurry to do further business development over the next three to four years, let's say, and that you'll be able to harvest cash? Thirdly, in terms of R&D costs, could you give us a sense for, given the current assets that you have in your portfolio right now, when do you see R&D's expenses peaking in order to develop that portfolio? I guess by 2025, you must have, let's say, exhausted the opportunities of the current R&D portfolio. Just to get a sense as to, let's say, when your R&D cost expenses sort of might peak. Then just perhaps one final remark. A key issue for investors has been the fact that consensus numbers have been ridiculously high for quite some time. Even though they have come down a bit now, they still look a bit high relative to my numbers. Wouldn't it be a good idea just to take the big swing now and get the numbers washed up? If we just say you're giving guidance for sales in 2025, what kind of EBITDA margin are you looking for in 2025 as well? Thank you very much. Hi, Peter. Thank you. Thank you for these questions. I think we stand by even though we have cautioned, obviously for this year, by the 25/25 logic. We have no reasons to question this. Main drivers of growth is going to be the launch products, Doptelet and Gamifant, and then pegcetacoplan, and then basically SEL-212. Obviously the launch, which will also kick in now probably more like early 2024 launch with the BIVV001, which will then expand again our hemophilia franchise. That basically are the primary drivers, of course. Then you have opportunities now with these new activities like Russia, Japan, and China, where you would expect those affiliates to clearly establish themselves well in the top 10, if not even, let's say the one or the other in the top five of our subsidiaries. Just given the potential and I think the angle we have to them. That basically underpins our quest for growth. These are the products, pegcetacoplan we think is going to be a very material product, got nice accolades from FDA. We will report later, obviously, on how we see the situation in Europe. If anything, we are more confident that this could be a 2021 launch in Europe. Basically, this would be a material product, but we also said that Doptelet will have peak sales of 500. We didn't see any reasons to a million to correct this. We are on a good way now to develop this product. We think that we can make significant impact already this year and become quite sizable. We also will see further internationalization that we have, that we see now. That this becomes three-digit in dollar. This, I think, gives you a bit of a flavor how we know that portfolio drives us. Yes, with the portfolio that we have, I mean, we have 12 late-stage projects. I mean, this is a mid-size company. You think that we have quite a bit of gas in the tank. We still think, when you look at value, the way people value assets in this category, there's a correlation between size and growth. That seems to correlate quite well with value. We still feel that we're not done, let's say, doing something, but we don't feel the pressure. We can be thoughtful about building the company and within the frame, obviously, that we have. We are not in a hurry. Yeah. What we have told the market is also that there is a tipping point, where we will start deleveraging simply because also then the company grows into a certain scale around 2023. Yeah. Let's say when we would not expect, I mean, nobody can foresee what opportunities we come up with. Also on the R&D side, but typically this is when you start deleveraging. Maybe we have another. One more. One more question, if this is okay. Sorry, Peter, we can answer this probably more specifically if you wish in an offline discussion. This gives you more like a high level. Maybe we refer to the next question. Thanks. Thank you. Our final question comes from Viktor Sundberg from ABG Sundal Collier. Please go ahead. Hi, thank you for taking my question. Maybe a quick follow-up here again on pricing. We've seen some price pressure in the U.S. on extended half-life factor treatments and ICER coming out quite aggressively saying that extended half-life factor is too expensive compared to its benefits, et cetera. Do Europeans government agree with this? I guess I'm trying to understand this dynamic with the price pressure. Is it more that you compete more on price to get patients? How should we think about pricing, for example, in France or Germany, your key markets? Yeah. I mean, basically, the good news is that in Europe, the price pressure was exerted on EHLs from the start of launch. You basically, the price premium you got over the short-acting was on a per unit basis, was basically most markets non-existent. Yeah. What it meant is that the benefit of the prolonged half-life was mostly passed on to the patient or the payer, depending on the usage already. Where the price pressure is probably more coming from right now, I think it's probably more Germany than the one or the other markets. That is because the payers see certain opportunities. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Just a quick one on HEMLIBRA as well. I mean, to be more direct, do you see any switches from Elocta to HEMLIBRA at the moment, or you still feel very protected that you can push on? Yeah. The fact that patients, yeah. Yeah. We see more switches from Elocta to HEMLIBRA than from HEMLIBRA back to Elocta at this stage. We see more gains from other short-acting but also some other EHLs back to Elocta. Yeah something that we see. The good news is that HEMLIBRA, as pointed out, has just over 20% market share, and that there is still a significant market out there where we can get patients. Yeah. Just taking apart maybe COVID-19 effects, price pressure, switching effects, is that a very minor part of the negative growth we saw here? I mean, actually our switching effect has been positive, so we have a net gain of patients. That's a positive. First of all, we gained more than we lost. If you just look at losses in isolation, then the value of that losses is insignificant in comparison to the unit reduction per patient. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Just very quickly on your guidance, I think maybe consensus got a little bit surprised this morning with regards to your R&D day where you guided for single-digit growth. Yeah. Of course, not taking into account currency, but still, any comment, anything that changed from your R&D Day that you realized in terms of competition, price pressure, et cetera, that made you be more cautious here in your guidance? I just would want to allude maybe to the earlier part of the presentation where basically what changed is really that we thought that the season would come back faster on the RSV side, but the virology is just super low. Secondly, let's say that basically we thought that we could already have more inroads into physician offices let's say faster. To be honest, I didn't expect that the lockdown now in many countries has been prolonged to March. If I would have anticipated this in December when we had the Capital Market Day, I would have informed you. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. I think, let's say, is there still a question? No. I think we are done now for today. It's a bit of a shorter question and answer, and I understand that you may have more questions, so please refer them to our IR department, and then we will try to answer them. As you can see, we are a little bit more on the conservative side, but these are also pretty uncertain times, and so I hope you appreciate it even though I understand that there are some concerns. Thanks a lot. Wish everybody a great day.