So, there are some very significant elements to itch beyond this simply being plaguing, but having a broader impact overall on quality of life for patients. And so, we think having the potential ability to reduce itch again is a critical factor. It clearly also ties to the potential for patients to stay on treatment and have significant compliance. The intention with the drug potentially like seladelpar is to reduce cholestatic markers of disease, inflammatory markers of disease, key elements that we think are related to disease progression. And when you can have a drug that can potentially also reduce pruritus, it suggests potentially better compliance long-term that could have a significant impact on overall liver health for patients. So, these things are all tied together and at the fundamental element of it, we think pruritus is going to be a key potential differentiator for seladelpar.
Chuck McWherter: Yes, the only other thing I would add is that in rare diseases and the successful marketing really hinges in many ways on activation of patients. And so the ability to be able, if confirmed in our studies and ends up in the label, the ability to communicate that directly to patients to get them activated, to have an opportunity to be aware that finally, there could be a treatment available to deal with this symptom. I think it’s going to be important part of our marketing strategy.
Sujal Shah: And then, Julian, the second part of your question, I think was geared towards potential other therapeutic areas of development for seladelpar and you mentioned specifically PSC. That’s certainly an indication we’ve thought quite a bit about and have talked a bit about in the past as well. Based on what we see with seladelpar in terms of its actions on cholestasis inflammation, the known effects we saw on reducing fibrosis and NASH patients, a mechanism in addition to these effects on pruritus that we’ve just talked about a mechanism for which we think there could very well be significant opportunity in PSC. Today, we’re clearly focused on a near term objective to create very near term value in PBC. And I think as we continue to have discussions internally and with thought leaders, at some point if we progress forward in PSC, we’ll have more detail to share there as it pertains to endpoints and study design, but today we’re continuing to be very focused.
Julian Harrison: Okay, great. Thanks.
Operator: And the next question comes from the line of Thomas Smith with SVB Securities. Please proceed with your question.
Unidentified Analyst: Hi, everyone. This is Mike on for Tom. Thanks for taking our questions. On the back of the Kaken deal, can you talk about what steps from a clinical development standpoint will be needed in order for seladelpar to get to market there? And how quickly you think that could happen? And then separately, do you plan to provide numerical values on some of the secondary endpoints and specifically as part of the initial data in 3Q? Thanks.
Chuck McWherter: Well, thanks for those questions. With respect to Kaken, we’re off to a very good start. We formed execution sub teams. We’re collaborating. The tech transfer process is ongoing. In terms of the overall clinical development plan, of course, it’s Kaken’s responsibility. I will say, because it’s known that in Japan, typically, you’ll have to establish what the exposure is in Japanese subjects. And then we typically bridge to a global Phase 3 study using an efficacy study in Japanese patients. In terms of the timing, I think it’s a little bit early for us, , as I’ve mentioned, just currently engaged with the joint steering committee, as well as these execution sub teams. But we’re really encouraged. Things are off to a really good start.
