Jan Mikkelsen: Yes, I think this is why we developing TransCon CNP. We really are developing it to provide an treatment that sure is addressing linear growth, but we can combine it with SKYTROFA and then I can — from a clinical concept, I will expect nearly you can decide what kind of linear growth you will have. But what we really want to ensuring that we are addressing the underlying comorbidities of the patient and how we measuring them is to have specific achondroplasia specific comorbidities. This is comorbidities that is coming and being reported on high, high, high frequent from the achondroplasia from when you see . And then we also are developing an patient specific reported outcome measuring where we’re trying to catch all the benefits they’re feeling, because they’re really seeing a huge benefit.
One of the things that is clear for us, it’s not receive lot of other sectors, not just related to . We see massive change, we see how the function beta in the physical way to balance, do normal work, do normal operation and other things like that. And this is all those elements we will try to capture. At the same time, we will capture the achondroplasia specific element like — basically like patients and other things like that putting.
Operator: Our next question is coming from Andreas Argyrides from Wedbush.
Andreas Argyrides: So when you’re thinking about — this is for PTH. When you’re thinking about the opportunity — launching the opportunity of PTH, how are you thinking about it compared to the NATPARA launch? And then maybe you can give us some insights on how NATPARA coming off the market at the end of ’23, informing your expectations for the launch? And then I have a follow up?
Jan Mikkelsen: I’m not comaring TransCon PTH in any way to NATPARA. It will have complete different labeling, have complete different clinical outcomes, have complete different clinical benefit. So just complete different impact on quality of life. So I’m not using that as a benchmark on anything. I’m not comparing that. There was a product that came out with a labeling as an adjunct, this is not what we’re addressing. It was a product that came out not seeing benefit on quality of life, it was a product that came out not showing any benefit on 24 hour urinary calcium, not really addressing the underlying disease. So you can — I don’t use that also any benchmark, it’s completely meaningless for me.
Andreas Argyrides: I guess maybe the opportunity that there’s no approved product on the market, there were some patients, mostly in Europe as well, there were still on it or they had access to it no longer. Are those going to be early adopters?
Jan Mikkelsen: Yes, I think actually — this is exactly as on somebody’s address before. Yes, that is patient that has been exposed to short acting PTH treatment. They are used to daily injection and other elements like that. But where we see the huge benefit is independent of the background is that being exposed to short acting PTH or not. So I don’t believe there is a less need for a patient to get on TransCon PTH treatment if you come from the group that has been on short acting PTH or have never seen a short acting PTH. The patient that have been on short acting PTH have perhaps a more common understanding of daily injection, have more common understanding about what they need to do as procedure to get that to happen. But I don’t believe that it’s a big barrier for any of the groups.
