Samit Hirawat : Thank you, Chris, and thanks, Carter, for the question as well. So we don’t have the specifics of the conference right now, where we will be able to share the data. But certainly, we will confirm that as information becomes available. In terms of the filing, again, we do not comment on that until we have — we release — we do a press release after the file is accepted. But certainly pleased with the data, as Chris just mentioned, COMMANDS is an important study for moving Reblozyl to the front line where we compared against an active control of ESAs and shown the superiority.
Operator: The next question is from the line of Matt Phipps with William Blair.
Matthew Phipps : You noted in the slides the decision not to move cendakimab into forward in atopic derm. Is that something specific from the product profile in the Phase II? Or that could maybe read through to the ongoing EoE trial? Or is it just the competitive dynamics in atopic dermatitis?
Samit Hirawat : Yes, sure, Matt. I can take that question, Samit here. Thank you for that. Look, remember, we have always said that as we move our programs forward, we always look at the data and we want to see the differentiation of that data and then, of course, look at the landscape and the competitive dynamics as well in atopic dermatitis, there are several therapies that have recently become available for patients, and they’re very effective. And so we had set our threshold quite high in terms of making that difference for the patients for atopic dermatitis. So we have seen the data. We do meet the primary endpoint, but we don’t think that it has a competitive advantage over what is available to the patients at this time.
And therefore, we are not moving it to the registration trials but it has nothing to do with what we saw for cendakimab in eosinophilic esophagitis, where we not only saw a change in the eosinophil infiltration, but also the dynamics in terms of the outcomes of patients for their dysphagia as well as the fibrosis in the Phase II study. And so that study continues and certainly, we’ll share the results when the study is completed.
Operator: Your next question is from the line of Robyn Karnauskas with Truist Securities.
Robyn Karnauskas : Great. Thank you for the question. So you have TYK2 in lupus, Sotyktu in lupus, there’s going to be a Phase III reading out with Pfizer on JAK plus TYK2 later this year. Maybe frame it on if that trial fails, like what’s your thoughts on the biology and how you’ll think about potential success of your TYK2? And then a flip question, if it succeeds, how do we think about from a biology standpoint, if you know anything about how much value adding JAK on top of a TYK2 might be for lupus? I know it could influence the safety profile, but anything you could give us on efficacy would be great.
Samit Hirawat : Maybe I can take that again. This is Samit. Thank you for the question. If you think about it, today, there is no JAK inhibitor approved for treatment of patients with psoriasis. We demonstrated the benefits of a TYK2 inhibitor, which has very specific downstream effects on IL-12, IL-23 and interferon, which, of course, is important. And throughout the last year or maybe even more, we’ve been answering that question of differentiation and protecting from a safety perspective, the profile of a TYK2 inhibitor versus a JAK inhibitor. So if you just move that fast forward now and think about it that for a patient population for whom we’ve just shown a superiority versus the prior standard of care that was being used in the oral setting, we’ve shown two trials with that superiority.
