Whether it’s functional, quality of life, whether it’s echocardiographic, whether it’s biomarker based. And that in a disease that’s otherwise steadily progressive. To see stability out to two years on both six-minute walk test and KCCQ stands out. And I think that’s what’s quite remarkable. So, look, I think over time, as clinicians will get experience, and I think this is, again, where clinicians are having experience as Tolga highlighted with AMVUTTRA both ONPATTRO and now AMVUTTRA for now many years taking care of PN patients and mixed phenotype patients. I think they’re also getting accustomed to the efficacy profile, the tolerability the safety profile of these medicines. So all of that helps, I think, in terms of physicians understanding of how to use medicines for their patients.
Christine Lindenboom: Great. Thank you, Pushkal. Next question?
Operator: Thank you. One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from Salveen Richter of Goldman Sachs. Your line is now open.
Unidentified Analyst: Thanks for taking our question. This is Tommy on for Salveen. So on HELIOS-B, how similar do you expect the APOLLO-B and HELIOS-B patient populations to be in terms of genotype and baseline characteristics? And besides the higher cap on HELIOS-B for baseline TAF use, are there any other notable differences? And do you have the flexibility to potentially push back top line data from HELIOS-B until all patients get to 36 months of follow up, if that was seen as necessary? Thank you.
Yvonne Greenstreet: Great question. Thank you, Pushkal?
Pushkal Garg: Yes, Tommy? I think what I would say is that in general, I would think about the patient populations in APOLLO-B and HELIOS-B as being fairly similar. Right. We started these studies around the same time. The entry criteria in general are the same as you talked about. The one exception is that we allowed for a higher baseline proportion of patients to come in on tafamidis. But by and large, I would think about these similar. And I think that’s, again, what helps us here is the fact that we’ve seen the positive results out of APOLLO-B across all the different measures that we’ve talked about. But this study has the benefit of being twice as large and three times as long. The follow up, as you know, is designed to allow for differential follow up and really to maximize the follow up that we have on the patients.
So I think that was asked earlier as well. I think this really maximizes or optimizes the power that we can sort of gain on some of the endpoints. So we’re looking forward to presenting the results in early 2024.
Operator: Thank you. And one moment for our next question. Jessica Fye of JPM Chase. Your line is now open.
Unidentified Analyst: Hey, guys, this is [indiscernible] on for Jessica Fye. Assuming HELIOS-B is positive, do you envision the net price of AMVUTTRA changing from the current polyneuropathy conscious and cardiomyopathy? Why or why not? Thank you.
Yvonne Greenstreet: Right, so it’s pretty early days. As Pushkal said, we’re expecting top line results from HELIOS-B in early 2024. And really, at this point in time, I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to make any specific comments about pricing other than to say, obviously we want to provide value to patients, physicians, and the ecosystem in general according to our patients access principles. I think that’s about all we can say at this point in time. Thank you for the question.
Operator: Thank you. And one moment for the next question. Maury Raycroft of Jefferies. Your line is now open.
Maury Raycroft: Hi, good morning. Thank you for taking my question. I think it was mentioned on our recent conference call that you have the opportunity to make tweaks to the HELIOS-B statistical analysis plan up until the database locks. Can you elaborate more on what that could entail? Would it require FDA buy in and how this flexibility factors into your chances of success for HELIOS-B?
Yvonne Greenstreet: Yes, I know. That’s a great question. Pushkal, any comments you’d like to make on the question?
