Katia Schlienger: So I can take that. We know that fine oncology PFS is not necessarily the best permanent end point. We know that on the map for example it’s three months in first line and two months in second line plus that does not reflect the huge advantage that is provided in first line and second line for this patient. So, I would like just two questions that yes we will provide all what we have. The PFS is not necessarily the right measure for immuno-oncology products. In terms of duration of response, so this is measuring the timing on treatment with a progression in patients who are responding. This will take several months to assess. And we will probably provide an update later on to scientific conference, abstract and presentation.
Asthika Goonewardene: And then just lastly, just bigger pictures here. Previously, in our discussions and we felt this too the really strong immunogenic response that was that you were generating HB-200 and the platform that was really attractive. And it’s kind of made sense that adding something like PD-1 was a logical step to making this work, given what you know today, and the emergence of other beta preclinical and otherwise. How do you feel about that? And if there’s anything that you would like to add that to a combo, what would that be?
Joern Aldag: I’m not sure about what you specifically want to find out here, but could you just specify your question.
Asthika Goonewardene: Yes, I mean, I’m just wondering like, do you need to you’re getting the imaging response with the HB-200. You’re getting checkpoint blockade with the PD-1. Is there anything else from an immunological perspective that you think would be useful to add to this combination? Maybe like, do you think like getting more dangerous signals for chemotherapy, but what do you think is the next logical component that you might want to add to this time of therapy here from an immunological perspective?
Joern Aldag: It may be interesting to look at the data that we will present at AACR, but I’ll let Katia answer the question.
Katia Schlienger: Yes. So, certainly as like we know. So what we saw in monotherapy, we saw that, we were able to see clinical response and stable disease in some patient. We saw huge immunogenicity injection with very high level of CD8 T cells specific to the tumor antigen in the circulation. We saw that those T cells are poly functional and that they do infiltrate the tumor. So, we would like to continue to develop those data in monotherapy and in combination with pembrolizumab over the next months. To tell you exactly what we will show and what it means. I think, Joern and the team is looking for general correlation between the immunogenicity and the efficacy. And we recently look at that, as we report and what we find.
Asthika Goonewardene: Awesome, guys. Thanks. I look forward to it and look forward to your updates at AACR as well.
Katia Schlienger: Thank you.
Operator: We will take our next question from Roy Buchanan at JMP Securities.
Roy Buchanan: Hey, great. Thanks for taking the questions. Just a few quick ones. First one for Reinhard, can you just remind me, if Gilead has a timeframe they need to make the purchase of stock? I think this $30 million, they are still eligible to purchase. Is there a certain timeframe on that?
Reinhard Kandera: Yes, there is a timeframe. We have actually the choice to draw that additional equity, and it is until end of 2023.
Roy Buchanan: Okay, great. Thank you. And then has Gilead said if the Phase 1 and hepatitis B is going to be in patients or healthy volunteers?
Joern Aldag: We don’t have to disclose that yet and I don’t think we can. We have to leave that to Gilead.
