Good day, and thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Intercept Pharmaceuticals Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2022 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. After the speaker's presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. To ask a question during the session, you will need to press star one one on your telephone. You will then hear an automated message advising your hand is raised. To withdraw your question, please press star one one again. Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded. I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Nareg Sagherian, Executive Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good morning, and thank you for joining us on today's call. This morning, we issued a press release announcing our fourth quarter and full year 2022 results, which is available on our website at interceptpharma.com. Before we begin our discussion, I'd like to note that during our call, we will be making forward-looking statements, including statements regarding our approved product and clinical development program, certain regulatory matters, and our strategy, prospects, financial guidance, and future commercial and financial performance. Listeners are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this call, and we undertake no obligation to update such statements except as required by law. These forward-looking statements are based on estimates and assumptions that, although believed to be reasonable, are inherently uncertain and subject to a number of risks and uncertainties. Some but not necessarily all of the risk factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from our historical results or those anticipated or predicted by our forward-looking statements are discussed in this morning's press release and in our periodic public filings with the SEC. Today's call will begin with prepared remarks from our President and CEO, Jerry Durso, our Chief Commercial Officer, Linda Richardson, President of Research and Development and Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Michelle Berrey, and Chief Financial Officer, Andrew Saik. We will then open the call for questions. Let me now turn the call over to our CEO, Jerry Durso. Thanks, Nareg. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us on our fourth quarter and full year conference call. Intercept made significant progress across the business in 2022, and I'm proud to highlight our achievements today. Looking at our performance in PBC, we again delivered double-digit sales growth for Ocaliva and ended 2022 with total US net sales of $285.7 million. This was 10% growth over 2021. Importantly, in the fourth quarter of 2022, Ocaliva generated $77.2 million in US net sales, which is 13% growth over the prior year quarter. We now look to 2023 as the year to continue driving growth. We're more confident than ever in the longevity of our PBC business. We know there remains a significant number of people living with PBC who could benefit from adding Ocaliva as a second line therapy. We added more certainty to the runway of our life cycle with the resolution of our patent infringement case for Ocaliva that was scheduled for trial in the U.S. District Court on February 27th of this year. The settlements protect Ocaliva market exclusivity into the 2030s and reinforce the long-term opportunity we have in PBC. We continue to progress our next generation PBC therapy, the fixed-dose combination of OCA and bezafibrate, which is another component of our long-term strategy. We look forward to sharing data on our next generation medicine later this year and are excited about its potential. Turning now to NASH. At the end of Q4, we resubmitted our NDA for OCA in pre-cirrhotic liver fibrosis due to NASH. Following FDA's acceptance in January, the agency assigned a PDUFA target action date of June 22nd. Reaching this point is the result of hard work and dedication from patients, physicians, study personnel, and our team here at Intercept and is a major milestone for the NASH community. OCA has demonstrated a strong and confirmed antifibrotic effect in our rigorous NASH program. We believe it has the potential to become an impactful therapy. We're now working through the regulatory review process and are advancing our launch readiness planning while taking a measured approach to investment as we progress through the upcoming milestones. We also made strides in our pipeline program with our next generation FXR agonist, INT-787. In November, we announced the lead indication for this investigational therapy, severe alcohol-associated hepatitis. We initiated our Phase II FRESH trial. Michelle will elaborate on this later in the call. Notably, the progress we made last year was complemented by the transformation of our capital structure. As a result of this work, we finished the year with nearly $500 million of cash on hand. 2023 will be a pivotal year for Intercept, and we're operating from a position of strength. Our balance sheet and foundational PBC business provide us with the financial flexibility and the strategic optionality to drive growth while positioning ourselves for success in NASH. This year, I look forward to working alongside the team as we build on the momentum of last year's performance and grow our commercial PBC business as we work through the regulatory review of OCA while preparing for a commercial launch in NASH, and as we progress our pipeline opportunities while continuing to innovate on behalf of people living with liver diseases. I look forward to sharing updates on our progression of these priorities throughout the year ahead. With that, I'll now turn the call over to Linda. Thanks, Jerry. Good morning, everyone. I'm pleased to share performance highlights for 2022. It was another strong year for our foundational Ocaliva business, underscoring the strength of Ocaliva's market position as the only second-line agent approved for use in PBC. We achieved double-digit growth for both the fourth quarter and the full year compared to the same time frames last year. Our performance in PBC was driven by a strong return to growth in the second half of 2022, with a few notable contributing factors. First, our new to brand prescriptions grew nearly 30% during the second half of 2022, as reported by IQVIA's NPA audit. We believe this would be the trend as we passed the one-year mark post label change in June of 2022. While over 95% of our business is driven by existing patients, it's good to see solid growth in new patients receiving Ocaliva, and speaks to the ongoing need for second-line therapy for many patients with PBC. Second, as a result of our ongoing efforts to reach new prescribers, we continue to see an increase in first-time Ocaliva writers. More specifically, we saw a 42% increase in new writers in the second half of 2022 versus 2021, a dynamic we see as very positive and important. Third, our continued investment in patient support services through our award-winning hub and our specialty pharmacy network has resulted in an 8-day improvement in specialty pharmacy time to fill. We want to ensure that appropriate eligible patients can quickly start treatment with Ocaliva. Simplifying facilitating processes here helps sustain existing patients and initiate new ones. Strong customer engagement and communication of the benefits of Ocaliva remain a focus for our commercial team in the field, at major conferences, and with patients. Last fall, we kicked off our new HCP and patient marketing campaigns, each with updated messaging designed to drive urgency and demonstrate the need to go beyond ALP management in fully addressing PBC treatment. We recently began to proactively provide to HCPs the Gastroenterology publication that presented, in greater detail, some of our strong real-world evidence regarding improved outcomes for patients taking Ocaliva. We anticipate additional publications and presentations of new real-world evidence later this year. Prescribers recognize the significance of real-world outcomes data when treating PBC. In market research studies, we have seen a significant increase in projected Ocaliva market share once HEPs and GIs were presented with the results from the real-world evidence studies. Turning now to NASH, we are engaging with all key stakeholders as we prepare to execute against our go-to-market commercial strategy. We continue to meet with payers to refine our thinking as we prepare for a potential launch in NASH. We are focused on understanding their needs and concerns, which has allowed us to gain valuable insight into our pricing, reimbursement, and overall access strategy. Market research with healthcare professionals shows that reversal of fibrosis, stopping further progression of fibrosis, and the prevention of cirrhosis will be the three- key drivers of prescribing for NASH patients with advanced fibrosis without cirrhosis. We believe that the strong and confirmed antifibrotic effects of OCA shown in our REGENERATE trial address all these areas of concern with a unique differentiating mechanism of action. Importantly, our well-established U.S. field presence and broad geographic footprint provide Intercept with a competitive advantage. Based on our analysis, nearly three in four of the highest potential prescribers for NASH already are within our existing PBC customer base, where we've been building relationships for the past six years. This overlap will enable us to easily flex to NASH disease awareness messages and then OCA-specific ones while also covering our current PBC targets. In the meantime, our disease awareness activities continue. Our unbranded website hosts our NASH Tipping Point campaign, educating providers on the significant risks associated with advanced fibrosis due to NASH. We will continue our presence at key congresses while also initiating disease awareness programs. In closing, we had strong PBC performance in 2022, remain confident in our ability to increase Ocaliva market penetration in 2023, and maintain a positive long-term outlook for our PBC franchise. The commercial team is actively and passionately preparing for our future in NASH. I'm proud of the team's performance and look forward to sharing updates on our progress throughout the year. I'll now turn the call over to Dr. Michelle Berrey. Thank you, Linda. Good morning, everyone. In 2022, we made substantial progress in our NASH development program and building out our pipeline. Looking first at NASH, in January, the FDA accepted the resubmission of our new drug application for OCA in pre-cirrhotic liver fibrosis due to NASH. We are thrilled to have progressed to this regulatory milestone, one step closer to reaching our goal of delivering the first FDA-approved therapy for this devastating disease. There's a critical need to address liver fibrosis due to NASH before patients progress to cirrhosis, a pivotal point in NASH disease progression associated with increased risks of both liver-specific and all-cause mortality. Our NDA is supported by a robust body of evidence from the OCA NASH clinical development program, including two positive 18-month interim analyses from the pivotal Phase 3 REGENERATE study and a large, robust safety assessment that includes the 2,477 patients from REGENERATE, with nearly 1,000 subjects on study drug for at least four years. OCA has demonstrated a consistent antifibrotic effect across two studies and multiple analyses of the REGENERATE study that we shared over the course of 2022. Through two independent histologic methodologies, OCA demonstrated fibrosis improvement of at least one stage without worsening of any of the three histologic parameters that comprise the NAFLD Activity Score or NAS. In both methodologies, OCA 25 mg demonstrated double the response rate of placebo in reducing liver fibrosis stage without worsening of any of the three histologic components. It's important to note that this endpoint was defined as a result of direct interactions with the FDA prior to finalization of the REGENERATE statistical analysis plan. In addition to robust efficacy data, our safety database, which is the largest in the NASH field with the longest duration of patient exposure, shows a well-characterized safety and tolerability profile that supports the potential chronic administration of OCA. We know that fibrosis is the strongest predictor of clinical outcomes in patients with NASH, and we continue to believe that OCA has the potential to become the first approved therapy in this disease. FDA indicated that it considers this a Class 2 resubmission and has assigned a PDUFA target action date of June 22nd for the NDA. We fully anticipate an advisory committee meeting as part of this process, but we do not yet have a confirmed date. We'll share additional updates as appropriate as we advance through this review process. Turning to PBC, we continue to prepare data from our post-marketing study, COBALT, and supplementary real-world evidence from large datasets in the U.S., U.K. and Europe. These data will be included in a regulatory submission to FDA this year in support of fulfilling post-marketing requirements for OCALIVA and PBC. The real-world data we have generated to date demonstrates the actual long-term clinical benefits of OCALIVA. Specifically, patients taking OCA had improved transplant-free and decompensation-free survival, which we know to be the most important treatment goals, both for individuals living with PBC and for their clinicians. Building on our commitment to innovating in PBC, we are making great progress with our fixed-dose combination of OCA and bezafibrate, a PPAR agonist. One of our two Phase II studies is now fully enrolled, and we're accelerating recruitment of patients into a second. These Phase II studies and our pharmacokinetic analyses will inform dose selection and study design for a Phase III trial. We anticipate selecting doses for the fixed-dose combination, as well as sharing data from planned analyses of the large Phase I and Phase II studies later this year. The OCA bezafibrate combination has synergistic mechanisms of action with the potential to further lower key biochemical measures that predict long-term outcomes in PBC while also improving tolerability. We're excited to show the potential impact of this combination that we believe has best-in-class potential. Finally, I'm happy to provide updates on our next-generation FXR agonist, INT-787, with a lead indication in severe alcohol-associated hepatitis or SAH. For background, alcohol-related liver disease as a cause of chronic liver disease is on the rise and is currently the leading indication for liver transplant in the U.S. Despite the increasing incidence of SAH in the U.S., there are no approved therapies for people who could develop this disease. We believe there are several indications in which INT-787 could make a potential impact. SAH provides us with a great initial opportunity for this FXR agonist with a different gut-to-liver ratio compared to OCA. In November, we announced initiation of our proof of concept Phase IIA study called FRESH, evaluating the safety, tolerability, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of INT-787 in patients with SAH. Our first FRESH site was activated in December 2022. We're continuing to add additional sites in the U.S., U.K. and France. As of February 2023, we have completed recruitment for our Phase II study. We look forward to sharing additional updates as this program advances. At this point, I'll turn the call over to Andrew for financial updates. Thank you, Michelle. Good morning, everyone. We have had a very strong 2022. I look forward to sharing our results and discussing our plans for the pivotal year ahead. I encourage you to please refer to our press release for a detailed summary of our financial results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2022. For this call, I will focus on the highlights as they relate to 2022. I will also provide guidance for 2023. As I begin, I would like to remind everyone that as you review our fourth quarter and full year financial information, please note that the divestiture of our international business was completed on July 1st. Our full year non-GAAP results include the divested business for the first half of the year. In our financial statements, the divested business has been moved to discontinued operations. Turning to the highlights for the fourth quarter and full year ended December 31, 2022. We were very pleased with the growth of Ocaliva in PBC in 2022. Our fourth quarter net sales growth was 13% over the prior year quarter for Ocaliva in the U.S. For the full year, we reported worldwide Ocaliva non-GAAP adjusted net sales of $343.8 million. With $285.7 million in total U.S. net sales compared to $260.8 million in total U.S. net sales in 2021. Touching on operating expenses for 2022, selling general and administrative expenses were $55.4 million in the fourth quarter of 2022 compared to $46.3 million in 2021. The period-over-period increase was primarily driven by investment in NASH launch preparation. SG&A expenses were $176.3 million in full year 2022 compared to $177.5 million in 2021, with a decrease in personnel related costs offset by an increase in NASH launch preparation. Research and development expenses decreased to $40.7 million in the fourth quarter of 2022 from $51.1 million in the prior year quarter. The decrease was primarily driven by lower NASH-related costs and cost-sharing reimbursements. R&D expense decreased to $176.6 million in 2022, down from $182.7 million in 2021. The decrease was primarily driven by lower NASH costs and cost-sharing reimbursements and were partially offset by the recognition of lower R&D tax credits. In 2022, approximately 2/3 of our R&D costs were related to our NASH program spend. 2022 was a year of financial transformation for the company. We executed a series of strategic transactions to transform our capital structure, which included the sale of our international business and several private repurchases of senior secured convertible notes. Regarding our convertible notes, as a result of the repurchases during 2022, the principal balance of the 2026 convertible secured notes was reduced by approximately 78% to $111.1 million. The company dramatically decreased annual cash interest. For 2023, cash interest expense will be $8 million as we anticipate our 2023 notes will be redeemed in July with cash on-hand. At year-end, the company had $491 million in cash and cash equivalents and $336 million in outstanding debt. We ended 2022 with the financial flexibility to move our business forward regardless of the FDA decision on OCA in NASH expected later this year. Turning to our financial guidance for 2023, we are guiding to $310 million-$340 million of Ocaliva net sales, which compares to $285.7 million in 2022. For 2023 non-GAAP adjusted operating expenses, we are guiding to $360 million-$390 million, which compares to approximately $325 million in non-GAAP operating expenses in 2022 from our continuing business when excluding the sale of the international business. Similar to what we've seen in prior years, we anticipate slightly lower revenue and higher cash utilization in the first quarter of 2023 relative to the rest of the year. We expect that Ocaliva first quarter sales will be impacted by the usual seasonality as patients are faced with insurance plan resets and Medicare coverage gaps at the beginning of the year. We also anticipate greater cash use in the first quarter due to activities from work related to preparing for a potential approval and launch in NASH and other annual expenses. Finally, we may choose to revise our 2023 guidance later in the year, pending potential regulatory approval for our NDA for OCA in pre-cirrhotic liver fibrosis due to NASH. In summary, we are pleased with our financial performance in 2022 and looking forward to a strong 2023. We are in a solid financial position and believe that our current balance sheet and cash on hand gives us the financial flexibility to continue to grow our existing Ocaliva business, support a potential launch in NASH and advance our pipeline programs. With that, I'd now like to turn it over to the operator for any questions. Operator? Thank you. As a reminder, to ask a question, please press star one one on your telephone and wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star one one again. Please stand by while we compile the Q&A roster. Our first question comes from the line of Ritu Baral with Cowen. Your line is now open. Good morning, guys. Thanks for taking the question. Michelle, has the FDA at any point communicated to you what the topic of the AdCom could be? Further, you know, any range we should be thinking of for the date of the AdCom? I guess we're all sort of coming at it wondering, given this is a resubmission, are you gonna have things like a mid-cycle review meeting where they're gonna tell you these things or, you know, are you flying blind like last time? Thanks. Good morning, Ritu. We do anticipate that the focus of the advisory committee meeting would be focused on overall benefit risk. We have had multiple conversations with them since the CRL, and we know that there are some areas of focus for them. We intend to convey those that certainly were all addressed in our NDA. The specific areas that we have communicated at the AASLD presentation and again at NASH-TAG, we feel that we have addressed all the areas of concern. With the confirmation of the anti-fibrotic benefit and the second analysis and a much more robust safety database with which we can address any of their earlier concerns, specifically around the long-term safety and tolerability of the drug, given that this would be anticipated to be a chronically administered drug. It's important that we have years of therapy in order to demonstrate that safety and tolerability. I guess just one more point to add in there, Ritu, to your question, as Michelle indicated in her pre-prepared remarks, all the prep for the ad com is ongoing, but we don't yet have a confirmed date. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Mayank Mamtani with B. Riley Securities. Your line is now open. Good morning. Thanks for taking our questions and congrats on the progress. I have a few. Just maybe, following up on the prior question. As part of your acceptance letter on the NDA filing, was it clearly communicated to you by FDA that they're planning to hold an ad com? I just wonder, you know, the agency does, is increasingly requiring in-person format. How, how confident do you feel you get an answer by the June 22nd PDUFA date? Then I have a couple of follow-ups. Yeah, I guess, on the ad com itself, we have every indication that we'll have an ad com. We can't speak to a date as there's none confirmed yet, but we are working in the context of the existing PDUFA date. Typically, you know, those come a handful of weeks prior to the PDUFA date. We're moving forward, we'll be fully prepared. Of course, we'll provide any additional information as appropriate if we get it from the agency. Okay. Thank you. Then on the apparently very strong guidance you had on PBC, seems like driven by new prescribers. Could you perhaps share what the overlap you may have with these new Hepatologists that you're having prescribe OCA for PBC, but also they may also care for NASH patients. Do you have that data cut? Mayank, we do, as you said, feel good about the performance on PBC, both for the quarter and the year where we saw an acceleration in the second half of the year, in the growth versus the first half. With a strong 13% growth in fourth quarter. Clearly, this is a long-term area of focus for us. We have been working with many of the key prescribing physicians for several years now. Linda can provide some details how we see a large part of that core audience also being really the first potential prescribers for NASH as we do the deep commercial planning in advance of the PDUFA on NASH. Yeah, we, you know, we cover right now from our analysis, three out of four of the top potential NASH prescribers already exist within our PBC call list. We're bringing in new PBC prescribers, but also have established relationships over the past six years and familiarity with Ocaliva in that same target audience. We feel comfortable that the groundwork that we've laid with PBC will translate very nicely and efficiently into a NASH, potential NASH launch. got it. My final question on the fixed-dose pill combination, Phase I, II data that you intend to report later in the year. Could you just maybe provide some thoughts on what Phase III design you might be thinking since, you know, you are in a unique position to pursue two currently approved therapies in this drug class? Just, I know it's early, but it'd be great to hear your thoughts on the Phase III design. Michelle, you want to take that one, please? Sure. Yes, great question. We are really excited about the fixed-dose combination of OCA plus bezafibrate. As you state it is we are in a unique position to have two potential therapies in PBC. I hesitate to give much detail on our plans for the Phase III until we have those conversations with the FDA to review all the very exciting data coming out of the Phase II. We feel we have the potential here with the combination for potential best in class for PBC. Again, it really underscores our long-term commitment to innovation in this space. Thanks, Mayank. Thank you. As a reminder, we ask that you please limit yourself to one question. Our next question comes from the line of Yasmeen Rahimi with Piper Sandler. Your line is now open. Hi, this is Emma on for Yas. Thanks for taking our questions. My question is, what are your thoughts on the recent ICER pricing report? With that, are you still thinking about differential pricing in NASH versus PBC? What type of payer discussions have you had to support that, if any here? Thanks, Emma. Maybe I'll give some overall view on how we're thinking about pricing and then Linda can comment on ICER. you know, as you would imagine, we're doing all the right work as we prepare for a launch that includes, you know, some up-to-date dialogue with our key payers and those are ongoing. We'll of course take a pricing decision once we have the full information, including a final label. We continue to work towards all the right steps to have optionality on pricing between Ocaliva and OCA in NASH. Should we choose to execute a pricing strategy that way, if so, we would anticipate a separate brand, separate NDC, the things that give us that option. All the updated work, including those discussions with payers, are going to be important inputs. We'll share more thinking about our strategy with the payer, which will of course be foundational for the launch as we get closer to the PDUFA date. Again, I think it's been several years we've had dialogue with the payers going back to before the first PDUFA date. We've done a lot of in-depth work. We're revising it with the current context as you would need to. Perhaps, Linda, you can comment on ICER. Yeah, of course. Thanks for the question. you know, frankly, we disagree with several of the approaches that were used within the model, which generated the draft evidence report. Specifically, when we look at the model, it does not define a standard that constitutes an acceptable data set and kind of applies an inconsistent approach in the exclusion of available data for different therapies. What do I mean by that? An example is it includes only Phase III data for OCA, but put both Phase III and Phase II data in for Madrigal. Even though the Phase II data did not include fibrosis improvement without worsening of NASH as a primary endpoint. Furthermore, it does not use the updated available information for OCA. It doesn't incorporate all data that are publicly available, notably the full and robust safety data set we have for REGENERATE. We presented this at AASLD in November 2022. Frankly, it doesn't present the new analyses that we shared at NASH-TAG in January 2023. There's kind of a lack of consistency in approach that, you know, we're recognizing, and, you know, we'll see how it goes from there. We have some concerns with the model. Thank you. Thanks, Emma. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jon Wolleben with JMP Securities. Your line is now open. Hey, good morning, and thanks for taking the question. Primarily wanted to ask about OpEx guidance. Wondering how much of, you know, incremental NASH SG&A is included there. If it's not fully included, how much more do you think would be necessary? I think, Andrew, you said that 2/3 of 2022 R&D was for NASH. Wondering if that's the same proportion you expect for 2023. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks, Jon. We are continuing to manage with, I think the right intersection of ensuring we have the right investments as we prepare for NASH, but also paying a lot of attention to making sure that we're managing our OpEx in a responsible way. Andrew, maybe you can go into how we're thinking about the NASH investment in context of the guidance that you gave earlier. Yeah, sure. Thanks for the question, John. Yeah, probably the right way to think about it, and the reason I gave sort of our continuing costs from last year. You know, our last year's spend was around $325 when you don't count the international operations that we sold in July. The way to think about it is the increase year-over-year is really 100% related to NASH launch spend. You got about $50 million-$60 million that we've targeted is pre-launch NASH. That's basically external, right? We're looking at things like payers. We're looking at pricing. We're looking at disease education. We're not adding a lot to infrastructure in the meantime until we get to our PDUFA date. It's all going to be external spend that we could ratchet up or ratchet down sort of as we go. With regard to R&D, we're continuing to evolve our pipeline, as you know. REVERSE is done, which means that our spend on NASH is going to be reduced this year relative to last year. Overall, R&D spend will be slightly down but materially flat, but you're going to see more like 50% NASH and 50% pipeline, if that helps. Very helpful. Thanks for the color. No problem. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Joseph Stringer with Needham & Company. Your line is now open. Hi, thanks for taking our questions. Just wanted to get your updated thoughts on the pre-cirrhotic NASH market segmentation. Looking ahead, if OCA is approved in NASH with your desired label, what types of NASH patients would you anticipate getting on the drug first? Yeah, thank, thanks, Joe. Maybe I can, I can start and Linda can chip in if she wants. I think, look, when we think about how we would best position OCA, we continue to be focused on the anti-fibrotic effect and the more advanced patients. I think that theme, which you've heard from me for a while, continues to be what we're getting back as we do these updated discussions with all of the stakeholders, the deep updated market research you would anticipate we're doing as we're in this phase of preparation. Really the advanced patient who is most likely identified through non-invasive means, continues to be where we would zero in on both the, you know, it really is the patient that the physicians, the payers and the patients themselves have the most amount of urgency towards seeking treatment. We know from the profile of OCA, including importantly the greater level of efficacy that we showed in some of the analysis that we reported out in the latter part of last year, showing higher efficacy, for example, in that S3 subset, goes in that same direction. We would also be focused in the initial phase on those patients that are already under care of the specialists, the HEPs and GIs. As Linda said earlier in response to the questions, we're seeing most of those physicians already today. We I think we have a good understanding of those practices and of those individual and group prescribers. Linda, anything you wanna add on? Yeah. I think, you know, the combination of calling on these folks with the urgency that's been noted over and over again by physicians with the fibrotic patients, advanced patients. We estimate that there are you know, probably 20 million adult patients with NASH, but only a small percentage, roughly about 3.8 million, have been actually diagnosed, right? There's nothing to use to treat them. You see an increase in diagnosis that comes following the ability to have on-label treatments and therapies and lots of discussions. We continue to estimate that approximately 500,000 diagnosed NASH patients, these are diagnosed, are currently under the care of a HEP or GI and have advanced fibrosis without cirrhosis. From a launch mode, we feel that those patients reside in the offices that we'll be calling on and have the most need, and we have the best data in that set. Great. Thanks for taking our questions, and thanks for the color. Thanks, Jon. No problem. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Brian Skorney with Baird. Your line is now open. Hey, good morning, guys. Thanks for taking my question. I guess on the Ocaliva guidance for 2023, maybe you could just frame up how to think about getting that higher end of the guidance. It's almost 20% increase year-over-year, which is quite a bit of acceleration compared to where it's been trending for the last two years. Can you just characterize what you're seeing in the more that might get you there? Does that high end include anything for NASH? Thanks. Andrew, maybe you start on that. Yeah, sure. Thanks, Brian. Look, the guidance that we gave is kind of in the, you know, 9%-19% range growth. We tend to try to target the center of that growth as to where our focus is internally. Again, we're continuing to put effort and energy into growing our top line, and we're really comfortable with our guidance overall. What I would say is that the guidance that we gave on Ocaliva is unimpacted by NASH. In my prepared remarks, you probably noted that I mentioned that we would reserve the right to come back and reissue guidance when and if we get approval from the FDA. At that point, when we give more of a blended net, secondary guidance would include any impact from NASH on Ocaliva. Yeah, Brian, the only other thing that I would add just in terms of dynamics, we talked in the second half of last year about the emerging data that we were beginning to publish from the real world datasets on outcomes. We know that some of those publications came late in the year. Look, all indications that data, we're getting it out there appropriately in the context of the medical affairs and/or a commercial plan. But that data is just starting to get into the hands of the prescribers. We know from the re-market research that we're doing, it can be quite important to those prescribers as they think about potentially increasing their utilization of Ocaliva for the right second-line patient. I think the last thing to note is coming out of the second half of the year, as we predicted, we've seen accelerated growth. We saw this bolus of new, you know, new writers, demand, et cetera. We are layering that now, as Jerry noted, with distribution of our real-world evidence data. When we test that in market research and have people that are exposed to that data and say, "All right, now project your prescribing," we see a significant increase in allocation of share to Ocaliva. As we have, and we anticipate additional presentations of new real-world evidence data, and frankly, the publications that we will be able to disseminate, we see that awareness picking up and really reframing the way that physicians evaluate what does complete PBC management look like. They've always said that, you know, preventing progression, maintaining the patients, those are the important things. We've got not only five years of data from our POISE data on looking at stabilization of fibrosis and bilirubin, but now we have outcomes, and we're talking about lives, not labs. These are actual patients that are benefiting from treatment with Ocaliva. Great. Thank you. Thanks, Brian. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Thomas Smith with SVB Securities. Your line is now open. Hi, everyone. This is Mike on for Thomas. Thanks for taking our question. Can you provide some additional color on where you are with the PBC regulatory discussions and what, if any, are the remaining gating factors for submission? Just as a quick follow-up, when in 2023 specifically are you targeting for submission? Michelle, can you take that please? Yep, happy to. Thanks for the question. We have been in discussion with the agency about the content of our planned supplemental NDA, which as we've discussed, would include the COBALT results, which we top-lined last year, as well as an external control. Comparing those patients from within the COBALT study who were on OCA to a group of patients from external databases. We've looked at the Komodo database as we've released, as well as two different patient registries, the U.K. and global PBC databases. We've been in discussions with the agency about inclusion there. We will also be planning to publish these data as we did with the Gastro Cover last December in releasing the real world evidence. The most striking thing about these datasets is the consistency. In completely independent datasets, we're seeing a 50% -7 0% reduction in death and decompensation leading to either transplant or death. We are really excited about those datasets. This would be the first non-ultra rare condition that would include real-world evidence in a significant submission. We know there's a lot of interest here. That is our plan for the submission. We haven't yet given guidance on the exact timing of that. As you might understand with a small group, we are working in two parallel paths, on the NASH preparations and for the PBC s NDA. We'll give more guidance as that date grows closer. Thanks for the question. Understood. Thanks very much. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Brian Abrams with RBC Capital Markets. Your line is now open. Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking my question. A question on IP. Can you talk about your level of confidence in OCA's exclusivity extending to 2031, just given all the recent settlements that you've been able to do, but still maybe one filer remaining out there? How should we be thinking about that expiration potentially applying to OCA in the NASH setting versus just in the PBC setting? Thanks. Thanks for the question, Brian. Andrew? Yeah, sure. Thanks, Brian. Yeah, look, we're extremely happy that we were able to get such a positive settlement. You know, not going to litigation on the IP was a great outcome for the company and getting, you know, 70% of the value of those 2033 patents is a real win for the company. Look, we can't speak to any, you know, the current additional filer out there, which is Zenara Pharma. That's a separate trial. It's the same jurisdiction, the same judge, same fact set. It would, you know, but it's out there in 2024. The good news for the company is that we're completely ready for trial, right? Because we did all the work, we did all the prep. Zenara would have to start over from scratch. We're never gonna predict an outcome, but it's the same fact set, and we're ready to enforce our IP vigorously. You know, in terms of carry on to NASH, again, you know, assuming that we get approval, that's the same fact set. It'll, you know, presumably if people file against it would be a completely different trial. Again, we're very comfortable with the IP. You know, we've been through it. It's the same patents. We would have the same level of comfort that we have with Ocaliva as we have with NASH. I don't know, Jerry, if you wanna add to that. No. I think you got it. Thanks, Brian. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Michael Yee with Jefferies. Your line is now open. Hey, guys. Thanks for taking the question. This is Yi-Chen on for Mike. One question from us today. Some competitors have phase three data coming up over the span of the next year. Could you comment to us a little bit of your view on how the competitive landscape is evolving and how Ocaliva is positioned in this landscape? Thank you. I assume you're talking about competitive landscape on PBC, just so that I'm clear. Yeah, PBC. Yeah, maybe a couple comments from me, and then Linda can get in a little deeper. I think importantly, we continue to position ourselves for a long-term effort in PBC. We have leadership there. Our goal is to maintain that leadership. I think as Andrew just indicated, the patent settlements give us more runway and certainty on Ocaliva. Importantly, you know, we have the opportunity with the next generation and the FDC coming, to not only potentially provide a better therapeutic solution, but also more runway because there's incremental exclusivity and IP potential on the combination. This is a long-term play for us now, and as we get ready for potentially some Phase III data to come and new entrants in the second line therapy, I think we feel good about our position and the work to do ahead. Maybe Linda, you can comment on how we see that evolving. Yeah. I mean, obviously, we're the incumbent. We are still growing. We have new data that's changing the way prescribers think about the goals. We have probably two more publications to come this year reinforcing our real-world evidence. What we're really trying to do is say it goes beyond ALP and just, you know, normalizing or lowering scores. It really is about what is the long-term impact on the patient. We are the only- People right now in the new second line, you know, not discounting Urso, but in the second line market, we are the only ones with that data and it is important, and we are repeating the data in multiple studies, and that gives credibility and credence to what we are able to communicate and generate. In that commitment to this space, we will continue to move the goalpost. Again, impacts lives, not labs. We have the ability to still call on these folks if we have a future NASH launch. We're in there day in and day out, and we're also strongly engaged with patient organizations, with the groups that are making guidelines, et cetera. We feel we have a lot of game and growth as is evidenced by our accelerating growth in the second half. Our plan is to carry that forward into the year. Great. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Jay Olson with Oppenheimer. Your line is now open. Oh, hey, congrats on the progress, and thank you for taking the question. I'm curious about the FRESH trial for INT-787. It says on clinicaltrials.gov that patients must participate in an alcohol use disorder program. Will patients be allowed to consume alcohol during the study? If so, how do you plan to manage alcohol consumption and the potential impact that could have on the trial outcomes? Thank you. Michelle? Yep. It's a great question. As we were designing this study, we worked with many of the centers across the U.S., U.K., and France, really experts in this area. What we have found is that it's really critical for outcomes for these patients to commit to being in an outpatient program, immediately after they're released from the hospital. The trial is focused on hospitalized patients, of course, but then they would continue for their follow-up, in this outpatient program. We do find that patients in general don't consume alcohol within the first couple of months, after release from the hospital. It's, a, I think, a special period in that recovery. Certainly after that, we do see recidivism. We are working, again, closely with these centers who have expertise in treating these patients and in maximizing the, their retention in the trial, and making sure that we don't have loss to follow at patients because of recidivism early. Sounds great. Thank you. Thanks, Jay. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Salveen Richter with Goldman Sachs. Your line is now open. Hi, this is Renata on for Salveen. Thank you for taking our question. How are you thinking about the product market fit for OCA, given the data demonstrating greater efficacy in F3 patients compared to F2 patients in NASH, as well as given the data from emerging treatments like the ones from Madrigal? Yeah. I can start on this. Just make sure I got the question correctly. I understand the question kind of positioning, given our stronger efficacy in F3s in the context of other data being out there. I mean, I think, look, we continue to do all the deep work in market and continue to confirm the understanding that this incremental efficacy that we see in the advanced population is an important part of the overall value proposition. We also know that, look, there are different mechanisms of action at play here between OCA, where you have a clearly consistent anti-fibrotic effect and other drugs that might be working differently. Again, I think everything we learn in an updated context, including consideration of other potential profiles that are out there, confirm that the unmet need is high overall. The unmet need is most pronounced in these more advanced populations and that the well-known profile of OCA plays to that more advanced population. Of course, there is an asymmetry of information available, so we know a lot about OCA in the context of all the safety and efficacy we've put out. The profile of other emerging therapies, as you would expect, you know, there's less information, particularly when we consider the longer-term experience that we now have with OCA. Importantly, when we think about the improved, the benefit risk profile of OCA that we believe we have from the first submission, one of the important dimensions is that longer-term safety experience, where we believe, you know, we have the opportunity both in the regulatory dialogue and ultimately, hopefully, in market to talk about appropriate chronic therapy, the right guidance around what to, what to measure and monitor over time. Again, I think it speaks well to that more advanced population. Look, the unmet need in NASH is high. I guess just the last point I would stress is, you know, in any chronic class, and clearly NASH will be over time an important chronic class of therapy, it always takes multiple drugs to address the different segments of patients that are out there, and we're working towards defining the right introductory approach and the right segments for for success for OCA and for the patients who have this high level of unmet need. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Eliana Merle with UBS. Your line is now open. Hey, guys. Thanks so much for taking the question. Just in terms of the NASH commercial landscape, you mentioned there's a large number of undiagnosed patients. I guess, what trends have you been seeing recently, you know, on the horizon of potential, initial therapies approved? On the topic of reimbursement and diagnosis, I guess, as you do your pre-commercial conversations with payers, what feedback are you getting in terms of what they will view as a NASH diagnosis and any types of potential restrictions or step-throughs, from the payer conversations, just given the potential for this to be a large class and say, potential biopsies or any other types of step-throughs, that might be needed or suggested by payers? Thanks. Yeah, maybe a couple of dynamics to have in mind, Ellie, and thank you for the question. As I indicated earlier, obviously we're doing all of the in-depth work. Look, our plan would be to come back with more details on the commercial plan in a formal way when we get closer to PDUFA. Nonetheless, I think there are a couple of key themes which continue to play out. One is that we continue to see the utilization of non-invasives overall move in the right direction, right? There is good momentum there. There is a larger utilization of the variety of different non-invasives for identifying patients. The payers do understand this dynamic, and, you know, are monitoring the progress and are looking for the right ways to identify patients consistent with what the KOLs are saying and what clinical practice is, which is clearly utilizations of non-invasives. I think with the payers, one of the themes which has been really important and productive for us is that we're talking in the early discussions with the payers about a subset of our potential indication, right? We're talking about the more advanced population. We're talking about working together to find a way to find the right patients. One of the big payer concerns is always utilization beyond your indication. It's a great starting point that we're talking about the more advanced population and actually identification of a subset of our indication. I think that gives us a good productive discussion. Of course, as I said, this will be an ongoing dialogue with the payers, and we'll come back with more details as we get closer to finalization of the strategy. Just the last point, of course, our final decision on price, et cetera, will be taken with approval, and we would communicate that as one of the last pieces in the equation. The only thing I might add to that, Ellie, is at this point, unlike four or five years ago when we were talking about initial payer discussions, the idea and the acceptance of NITs is also broader. That plays into people trying to get to an easier path and the expense and the time, and frankly, the pain for patients of biopsy. I really feel like that is an advancement from where we were before and should help with different, you know, the expansion of NITs being available and access to different ways to find appropriate advanced patients really has moved significantly from our earlier work. Great. Thanks for the color. Thanks, Ellie. Thank you. Our next question comes from the line of Geoff Meacham with Bank of America. Your line is now open. Hi, good morning. This is Susan on for Geoff. Given the company's stronger cash position, are there any interesting external business development opportunities? If external business development isn't, on the books this year, which internal programs do you expect to accelerate instead? Yeah. As you can imagine, we're always looking for externally for good opportunities, but we're also making sure that we're managing the cash we have on hand appropriately given the work that we're trying to do and funding, you know, the important internal programs that we discussed some this morning, INT-787 with the lead indication ongoing, and importantly, the long-term next generation in PBC for the fixed-dose combination will be our primary focus. We're also looking for additional indications for both of those internal assets, should it make sense. We'll continue to evolve the pipeline in the right way while we also make sure that we're focusing our cash and then our investment on the growth drivers. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question is a follow-up from Mayank Mamtani with B. Riley Securities. Your line is now open. Thanks for squeezing me in for a follow-up. Maybe just one more NASH NDA review question. Has there been any indication for biopsy endpoint definition changing or being mechanism-specific, et cetera? You know, anything that would suggest that agency might be looking to go beyond the scope of their 2018 draft guidance document, Michelle? Well, as Linda was speaking to, we have seen a lot of interest and some great publications now coming out on the non-invasive tests. I think it's recognized certainly by the community and by the GI division that both patients and providers would really look for an alternative to biopsy. Really, the only reason folks are getting a liver biopsy is to participate in clinical trials. Having said that, we have relied on histology for decades in viral hepatitis and now in NASH. That is our agreement with the agency that this planned interim analysis would focus on histology. We're confident that the histology results that we've seen now with two independent analyses confirm our anti-fibrotic benefit, and we're excited about that opportunity to discuss it with the agency at an upcoming opportunity. I think it does remain draft guidance as you point out, though. As more data are being reviewed, we may see some modifications to that, but we are confident in our submission and our analyses that have been submitted with the NDA. Thanks for the question. Thanks for taking my follow. Thank you. Now we'll turn the call back over to Jerry for closing remarks. Jerry? Thanks everybody for joining us today. Just to reiterate, I'm really extremely proud of the performance that the Intercept team delivered, both in the fourth quarter and for the year of 2022. We clearly have a lot of work ahead of us, but I think the achievements that we've discussed this morning set us up to drive continued long-term growth for Intercept. I definitely look forward to sharing updates as we progress through what is an important and exciting year ahead. Thanks, and everybody have a great day. This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.