Dr. Christopher Missling: Yeah. So we really want to have the best impact, I would say. And you don’t have a second chance for first impression, as they say. And certainly having data of the open-label study, which is 96 weeks, probably, would be favorable. However, we have not decided how to proceed on the timing exactly, but definitely this year. But also we can do, since it’s an open-label, interim cuts. So there’s a way to expedite the analysis of the open label study.
Soumit Roy: That is truly helpful. The last question on if you can provide any guidance on the timeline around completion of the European filing?
Dr. Christopher Missling: Yeah. So we definitely want to expedite this and the teams are working really over time to put together the modules, which are many pages, a significant package, we talk about a lot of documents and they all have to be completely ready. Usually this takes time and other companies are going through the same process need the same time. So we’re not in a different situation like that. But we said we want to submit this year and we are well on track to do that. So we will provide updated timing when we get closer to the filing time. But we have very good on time with that. So stay tuned.
Soumit Roy: Thank you and congratulations on all the progress.
Dr. Christopher Missling: Yeah. Thank you.
Operator: Our next call is coming from Ram at H.C. Wainwright. Ram, you should be live.
Ram Selvaraju: Can you hear me?
Operator: Yeah. Perfect. Thank you.
Ram Selvaraju: Okay. With respect to the regulatory process with the European authorities, can you give us a sense of A, when you expect the MAA filing to be completed, and B, how you anticipate the process to evolve with respect to the CHMP review, how and when they are likely to become involved in the review of the application and what do you understand to be the principal criteria they are going to use to evaluate the suitability of blarcamesine for approval in the European Union? Thank you.
Dr. Christopher Missling: So we stated that just a minute ago that we are filing as soon as possible, definitely this year and the team is really working overtime to put together a package which has to be done in one submission. There’s also interactions taking place with the EMA to be aligned on the technicalities, so that precedes this submission. We also are, sorry, what was the second question?
Ram Selvaraju: The involvement of the CHMP, that review committee that typically looks at drug candidates that are subjected — submitted to the EMA for approval and renders a positive or a negative opinion prior to an approval decision being taken. Just wanted to know when you expect the CHMP to get involved in the review of the blarcamesine MAA and what criteria you expect them to use to determine what their opinion should be.
Dr. Christopher Missling: Right. Thank you for reminding. So the procedure of the submission involves a review of the package before it gets submitted and it’s a very healthy procedure because it allows exactly this intelligence to, feedback to be received. So we expect this to take place. To give you a sense of the level of interest, we noted before that the reason we submitted to the EMA was not because we thought it would be a good idea, but because we shared the majority of the data with the EMA beforehand, and asked for their input and their feedback, and their response was unambiguous to request to immediately file a submission. So we of course hope that this initial feedback will continue to be the case down the road and right now we have no belief why it wouldn’t, but that is of course up to the review.
So we are coming in here, not that we push, but we were pulled into the submission, given probably the unmet need in Europe and also the fact that the European Union has not MRI or PET centers in all places in the countries of the European Union, like in certain countries, for example, like Hungary or Poland or Romania, there are not enough MRI centers, which would probably be needed for an antibody given its safety profile. So that’s the best we can say at this point.
Ram Selvaraju: And with respect to 3-71, just wanted to A, get a sense of how you expect to monitor the efficacy profile of this compound in schizophrenia. If you regard, for example, certain domains of the PANSS to be the most appropriate efficacy measures, as well as the extent to which you expect 3-71 to be differentiated from existing anti-schizophrenic medications and what you expect the principal areas of differentiation to be. For example, is it safety and tolerability, or so then the efficacy, or do you expect on both the safety, as well as the efficacy fronts, this drug candidate to demonstrate the differentiated profile versus currently marketed, for example, atypical antipsychotic medications?
Dr. Christopher Missling: Yeah. I think it’s exactly as you stated, it could be really both. And if you look at the landscape of drug approvals, you want to always be better than what is out there on the market. So if you’re able to show that the safety has a better feature, a better profile and also translate into stronger, more meaningful efficacy, both on the positive, as well as the negative domains of schizophrenia, then this would be extremely valuable and helpful. We also want to point out in this study, we are focusing on EG/ERP as a considered surrogate biomarker of schizophrenia. So we are excited about finding out how the drug interacts in that regard and it’s a very elegant non-invasive methodology to identify that.
But we also have included the standard PANSS score in addition to this EG/ERP. So we might learn something about the effect of our drug in the study in those regard, which would then allow us to decide how to proceed with this drug in schizophrenia.
