Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Rajan Sharma from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Rajan Sharma: Hi, thanks for taking my question. So maybe just to follow on from the question on competition. Could you just share your perspectives on early data from immune advanced second generation FcRn antibody, I realize it’s still very early, but be helpful to get your thoughts on that. And specifically, I guess how important you think an incremental IgG reduction is in driving clinical outcomes. And then, given the immune events have been quite clear on which indications they’re targeting initially, does that change your thinking on the additional indications you may target with VYVGART or indeed how quickly you may perceive those?
Tim Van Hauwermeiren: Yes. Thank you for the question. So it’s very difficult to comment on someone else’s data, especially when the early Phase 1 data, I would invite you to study the Phase 1 data of VYVGART’s and the Phase 2 dose finding data of VYVGART to compare and contrast. Our task as the leader in the space actually is to bind it to take in what we think is a phenomenal excellent antagonists into areas of high unmet medical needs, and actually continue to pioneer the understanding of the biology behind VYVGART and FcRn biology. So the only thing I would caution against in this call is to just extrapolate VYVGART data to other molecules., VYVGART has a distinctly different molecular design with distinctly different properties. And I think we need to wait for Phase 2 data before we can start to compare and contrast. So we will continue to focus on the pioneering role we have and we sharply focused on the patient needs. Thank you.
Operator: And we have time for one more question. Your final question comes from the line of Charles Pitman from Barclays. Your line is open.
Charles Pitman: Hi, guys. Thanks very much for taking my question. Just quickly on bullous, can you just clarify and kind of highlight what it is that you’re specifically looking for on the GO/NO GO decision. And to what degree as the expected readout of pemphigus VYVGART is expect is going to help you in terms of trying to set up the kind of ongoing trial design post the GO/NO GO decision. Now to what degree is that design still adaptive to your impending learnings? Thank you.
Tim Van Hauwermeiren: Thank you for the question. You’re right in your assumption that the GO/NO GO decision point would still allow us to tweak certain aspects of the trial. For example, sample size to just powering. This is a very demanding endpoint. It’s a different endpoint than in pemphigus. In pemphigus, the endpoint is CR on a minimum dose of steroids for at least eight weeks. In bullous pemphigoid endpoint is even tougher. It is a complete response of steroids. So the GO/NO GO decision point allows us to triangulate very ingoing assumptions for the trial design correct or do we need some tweaking, they will also give us an early visibility on the achievability of course of this primary endpoint. So that’s the gist of the GO/NO GO decision point. And thank you for your question.
Operator: And ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today’s conference call. We thank you for your participation. And you may now disconnect.
