So, we’ll have a very rich array of endpoints to characterize the benefit of the drug even above and beyond FVC. And in terms of biomarkers, I mean, QLF, the quantitative lung fibrosis score is an imaging biomarker that we do think we have very meaningful results in Phase 2 in PRAISE, and we are including the endpoint in Phase 3. So we’re hopeful to continue to be able to show not only that patients have reduction in the decline of their lung function as measured by FVC, but less evolution of scarring or fibrosis by the QLF score. So we’re going to have quite a comprehensive view of what pamrevlumab can do for the patient based on the whole sequence of endpoints.
Thane Wettig: Annabel, this is Thane. Maybe just to add a little bit of color to what Enrique and Mark has said. When we put a profile in front of clinicians, and they have a really good understanding for what do we expect from both OPEB and Esri given the 8-plus years on the market. They don’t recite back to us a specific FVC difference relative to placebo that they would expect to see. And in fact, if you look at the Phase 3 trials between OPEB and Esri, the absolute differences between those drugs and placebo are quite different from another, but in relative terms, they’re fairly similar to one another. What they tend to tell us is, and this is the key reason why we believe more patients aren’t treated as they just don’t believe the risk benefit is in favor of treating with the drug for many of these patients.
And so that means that they’re not only taking a look at the potential reduction in FVC decline, they’re also taking a look at the tolerability, the quality of life aspects for the individual patient. And so when we share with them the pamrevlumab profile, and we show just a very base case FVC reduction difference from placebo that’s in the ballpark of OPEB and Esri, which even though PRAISE was actually a bit better than that. When we look at the totality of the profile, there are a lot of patient cases that we put in front of them where they put for pamrevlumab relative to the two current identified product options.
Annabel Samimy: Okay. Great. That’s actually really helpful. So then just a quick question on LELANTOS-1 and 2. So clearly, there are slightly different endpoints because you’ve got different patient populations here. The non-ambulatory obviously have more upper limb measurements then you have the North Star ambulatory for LELANTOS-2. Is there any crossover in any of the endpoints on LELANTOS-1 and LELANTOS-2 such that, say, if there is no benefit on ambulatory assessment, but there could be some benefit on upper limb assessments or functional assessments of that, like you saw in LELANTOS-1. Is there anything there that could be drawn or cross compared in that way. It just seems like the two different end points or so are such different hurdles for these two different patient populations.
Mark Eisner: Yes. No, interesting question. Yes. I mean remember, recall for everyone that LELANTOS-1, the non-ambulatory study comes first before LELANTOS-2, the ambulatory study. And because as you’re alluding to, the non-ambulatory patients have already lost the ability to walk, their well care bound and their function is much more limited. We are needing to use the performance of the upper limb, which is a validated endpoint that assesses upper function because they’ve already lost so much lower than other function. So while I — so I think it will be a bit challenging to be predicting LELANTOS-2 outcomes based on LELANTOS-1. In other words, if we see a signal in LELANTOS-1, we could see even a bigger signal in LELANTOS-2 because they still have so much more function the North Star ambulatory assessment provides a more sort of holistic evaluation of the patient.
