Jay Luly: So I think right now we have the clinical data that we have, with regards to the SPRINT study. Again, we saw antiviral effect, we saw effect on symptom improvement. So those are the data that we have. And as I mentioned the regulatory discussions are ongoing. When we will finish those, they will be done when, we are done with the exchanges. So, it is hard for me to put a time point on that right now. But we will have further updates as we progress.
Unidentified Analyst: And then finally, one last one on cash runway. Can you go over the main drivers for you extending runway from 2026 last quarter to 2027 now? Outside of the owner’s royalty sale, are there any other ongoing portfolio prioritization activities that we should be aware of?
Paul Mellett: Well, as we have indicated, this is Paul Millett, we have made the decision to wait for a partnering situation to continue the Phase 3 work on 235, and that is a significant extension of our runway for the most part. And that is the primary driver and then obviously we have not discussed any potential revenue or anything like that from a partnering arrangement. It is just simply the expense sparing of the Phase 3 trials.
Operator: Our next question comes from Brian Skorney from Baird.
Luke Herrmann: This is Luke on for Brian. Thanks for taking the questions. First on 323, any consideration with regard to the human challenge study design to maximize potential read through to real world populations? And then just a second one on HMPV and RSV, the dual inhibitor. As you finalize selection of that candidate, is there any consideration of potential compromises that make the candidate more or less able to potently inhibit either virus or are trade-offs not really a necessity in this situation?
Jay Luly: Yes 323 again, it is the challenge study, right. It is the sort of rite of passage for RSV molecules. Everybody puts them through the challenge study, and for the most part, everybody runs the challenge study in a very similar way so that you can cross trial comparisons. They are always never perfect or ideal, but to the extent that you can compare data in this setup, it is helpful to run it in the same way. So, not every molecule that goes into a challenge study comes out successfully from a challenge study. So it is not a given, but we view it as a good next step. And one that, again, further de-risks things because if you come out of the challenge study with really robust data, you know that you have a good antiviral in a human setting.
So, you put that in your back pocket. And then with regards to human metapneumo RSV dual. I don’t, there is not really, not sure I fully understand your question. I mean, we have, again, we put data out on a prototype. We are aiming to have our final candidate or our candidate finalized in Q4. You can never exactly balance potency, while I suspect you could try to do that maybe for the rest of your life trying to get everything exactly balanced. But that doesn’t kind of matter because you always, whenever you have a broader spectrum drug, there is always a dose defining pathogen, which is the one that you are the least potent against. Knowing that, if you dose for that, an account for that, then you will be good against the, in this case, the other pathogen, which has even greater potency.
So, we are optimizing different characteristics of the molecule in that program, settling down to finalists that we are just doing sort of final characterization on the profile. And then assuming that all goes well. Again, we are targeting Q4 as the timing for that candidate selection, final selection.
