Sanjay Shukla: Yeah. I mean, I think 2810 is something that frankly when I think about its opportunity, we’ve landed on these indications that this is the best fit for 2810. So moving forward, these really rare third- line cancers and especially these neuroendocrine phenotypes is really the indication where it makes most sense for 2810 to advance. Now when you think about these rare cancers, they can be slow to enroll. Certain academic centers are specialists in there — in these sort of rare types of cancer. So it makes sense for us to partner with those academic experts And because these are rare cancers, we actually have more access to non-dilutive ways of funding because there is money out there for these sort of rare cancers.
So it’s an intersection of our data, number one, pointing us in that direction, but these are cancers that we should actually target with 2810. And conversely, it allows us to also work with academics, which at the end of the day serves us well under these current conditions. So it’s an intersection of really I think our data, the opportunity with these experts in these rare cancers. And then the fact that given current conditions, we’re grateful that we’re probably going to have avenues at these centers. So I think it makes sense for us based on a lot of different factors to progress the program side by side with these centers. And conversely, of course, it does help us focus on efzofitimod, as well.
Joe Pantginis: Great. Thanks for the color, Sanjay.
Operator: One moment. And our next question will come from Hartaj Singh of Oppenheimer. Your line is open.
Hartaj Singh: Great. Thanks, Sanjay and team for all the updates. Sanjay, you just got a different kind of question. I think it might be a little early for this, but just first question is, we kind of — we did a survey of high prescribing physicians for my sarcoidosis and we were — I mean, we shouldn’t have been — we were shocked at just how much they use steroids and how much they want — not want to use steroids, right, 90%-plus, 100% use steroids and 90% want there to patients to get off steroids or reduced steroids. So there’s this burden, right? And you’ve talked about all the patient numbers that go into the potential efzofitimod. What about on the value side? Like, I mean, has any — have you done preliminary work as to what could be comps for an efzofitimod towards the data?
Was to recapitulate itself in Phase 3 and it was to get approved? What sort of comps are we thinking about assuming the drug that’s approved? And I just got a follow-up question. Thank you.
Sanjay Shukla: We have spent some time this last quarter looking a little bit more closely at that. We’ve done our own internal analysis actually with an external firm that has interviewed experts and done some early payer work that you might be hinting to. Our estimates were a little light and I think we’re all learning that, first of all, more patients are on steroids than we expect. It’s a bigger issue and patients want to get off steroids. Conversely, from a pricing standpoint, most experts have come back to us and say the pricing of this drug, if we start to see these kinds of steroid reduction effects, while also improving lung function, improving quality of life, it could be upwards to kind of what Humira is getting. That’s probably on the high end, but you look at those drugs like Ofev, Esbriet.
