It appears to do exactly what we want in terms of avoiding the occurrence of target negative relapses, which is the key thing that obviously you’d be looking to address, and where we know that is particularly important is obviously in acute leukemia. There’s been initial reports that there is a certain proportion of patients that do actually show CD19 negative relapses in the context of diffuse large B cell lymphoma. There haven’t been as many reports more recently. In our own hands and with obe-cel, we haven’t seen CD19 negative relapses, nor did we with our collaborator programs , so whether or not that is a major issue to actually address in those indications, I think is unclear at this point in time, and I think that is one of the questions I think we’ll look into in terms of the ability to broaden the utility of the dual targeting approach into additional indications.
But where it’s very clear is that in ALL, that is certainly a driver for relapse both for children as well as for adult patients, and we believe that at some point it makes sense to consider that program to move into the succession of obe-cel in the acute leukemia setting as well, so that’s sort of our take in terms of the range as well as the way we’re thinking about it, and ultimately these are a set of investment decisions and it’s a question of sequencing those investments, and I think the priority will first be on actually broadening the opportunity for obe-cel and then in the second step actually then moving forward with AUTO122 in terms of the actual life cycle to obe-cel.
Sebastiaan van der Schoot: Great, thank you very much.
Christian Itin: Thanks Sebastiaan.
Operator: Thank you. One moment. Our last question comes from Asthika Goonewardene with Truist. Your line is open.
Karina Rabayeva: Hi, this is Karina for Asthika. Just have two questions on pricing. With the filings due by year end, how are you guys thinking to price obe-cel, and can you also discuss some preliminary feedback you have received from payors in the U.S. and Europe? Also, is there any potential for your pricing power to change with detailed data at ASCO? Thank you.
Christian Itin: Sorry Karina, I didn’t get the last part of the question.
Karina Rabayeva: The pricing power with the next update at ASCO.
Christian Itin: Oh, I see – okay. Thank you. Well first of all, thanks for joining, Karina. Interesting questions related to pricing. I think what we’ve been seeing across the space is there’s two dimensions. First of all, we’re having ALL typically obviously with Blincyto and the use of Blincyto in patients with lower disease burden. We also previously used up to four cycles in those patients, which is basically getting the price for that product into the range of between $400,000 and $500,000 per patient in the U.S, so that’s one benchmark which is standard of care and kind of what that bracket that is. When you then look on the approved CAR T therapy in ALL, that is in the range of $450,000 during the course–expected to be during the course of this year, so that’s sort of the second, I think, bracket that we’re seeing in the U.S, and we would expect that we would be pricing in a similar range.
