Mark Eisner: Right, so, in terms of the ZEPHYRUS-1 study, yes, disappointing results in terms of the primary endpoint and the secondary endpoints, Most of which showed kind of numerically better results for Pam versus placebo, but none of which were statistically significant. The kind of – there were three major issues going into the trial that I think we and everyone was focused on. Number one, was with the placebo decline at 48 weeks ZEPHYRUS-1 be adequate to short treatment product and it was – it was 330ml decline which compared very similarly to 300ml. The second point was the influence of prior history of standard-of-care and about half the patients were treatment experienced, about half were treatment-naive and that really made no real meaningful difference on the results.
And then the last point that I think was a lot of focus are, what about those patients who started standard-of-care or study that turned out to be about 14% started out or has been on study and again, that did not make any meaningful difference in the study results. So, the top three things we were really focused on and I think the analyst and investor community was focused on really turned out to be within what we would have predicted. So, at this time, we don’t have any clear reason why these – results were less significant than the praise results except to say that there – Phase 2 to phase 3 translation in this disease IPF is very, very challenging. If you look at the Galapagos Gilead if you look at the Roche data, they’ve run into similar challenges and I don’t think these challenges are completely understood at this time.
Alexandra Ramsey: Alright. Got it. Thank you so much. Very helpful.
Mark Eisner: Thank you for the questions.
Operator: One moment for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Paul Choi with Goldman Sachs. Please proceed with your question.
Paul Choi: Hi, thanks, good afternoon. And thank you for taking our questions. May be returning to the subject of DMD for a minute and LELANTOS-2, is there any component of the North Star assessment that you think we’re pamrevlumab might show particular benefit? Any gleaning fair in the ambulatory population would be helpful?
Mark Eisner: Right. Well, the short answer Paul is, we really don’t know. I mean, the total score is designed for the total score and we will be looking at – I will also be looking at, pardon me, 10 meter walk, the stair climb, other components, but at this point in time, it’s difficult to answer that question. And I think we’ll have to wait the data.
Paul Choi: Okay. Fair enough. And then, turning to your oncology pipeline and FG-3246, you’ll have the combination study with XTANDI next year. I am just curious if you can maybe sort of frame expectations for what responses might look like, whether it’s on PSA? Or how you’re thinking about comping the results versus either monotherapy studies or other XTANDI studies with chemo? Any framework or context there would be appreciated. Thank you.
Thane Wettig: Good. Thanks, Paul. I have John address the second question.
John Hunter : Sure. Hello and thank you, Mark might have better insight into it. But just with regards to how we’re viewing it, we kind of have a baseline now with the monotherapy results and we know what to expect with a FG-3246 alone. So really I think with the XTANDI combination, we will be looking to see if there is an additional benefit. And we’d be looking both at the PSA50 and overall response rate given that we did see those in the earlier Phase 1 trial. Mark, you might want to add anything?
Mark Eisner: Yeah. Sorry, John. I was – I have the exact same perspective. If it does increase CD46 expression, enzalutamide that is that we could expect to see a greater degree of clinical efficacy that will help the hypothesis and that has been tested.
