Mondher Mahjoubi: Thank you, Arthur.
Operator: Your next question is from the line of Rajan Sharma with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Rajan Sharma: Hi, thanks for the questions. I’ve got two as well. So one is on financials and the second is on the pipeline. So on financials, just thinking about costs in 2023, and how we should think about that, given that you have MATISSE, and also the IND for the CD20 tetra-specific. Would it be fair to assume kind of a similar level of growth that we saw in ’22 versus ’21? And then secondly, just on the pipeline and on the CD20 tetra-specific, again, what sort of profile would you be looking for in the initial Phase 1 data to kind of continue development there? And can you just provide a little bit more clarity on timelines for when we could potentially see the data? I know it’s kind of dependent on the R&D, but on the side it says ’24 plus, so could that be in 2024? Thanks.
Mondher Mahjoubi: Yes, thank you, Rajan. Two questions. The first one for Frederic, to give some colors on our burn rate for 2023 and would that be in line with what we have in the budget or not, given that we have two new studies entering into Phase 1 — two new products enter into Phase 1, sorry, two new major trial, the randomized Phase 2 MATISSE, and the Phase 1 IPH6501. And then maybe Joyson, you can provide some colors on the final touch on the IPH6501 protocol and patient population.
Frederic Lombard: Yes, it’s okay. Thanks, Mondher. Yes, coming to the cash burn, actually given the difference in some maturity of the trials, some ending, some starting, which are mostly offsetting the cash burn for the year to come, it will be in the same range or even a little bit lower. So we will be able to fund these additional studies without adding more cost to the current cash burn.
Mondher Mahjoubi: And maybe adding that to the MATISSE trial is, partnership .
Frederic Lombard: Also — yes, also for the MATISSE trial, don’t forget we share also some of the costs with AstraZeneca. And also something important to be able to finance all this strategy and we disclose this also is that we do have a careful approach on our resources and have some efficiency measures to make sure that we can finance our strategy. So
Mondher Mahjoubi: Okay. Joyson, on the education and the selection criteria for IPH6501?
Joyson Karakunnel: Yes. So as mentioned, the IPH6501 is CD20 targeted molecule. So the population that we will be looking at is initially is the CD20 positive lymphoma. We’re in the process of getting the protocol together as well as discussing with the FDA and we’ll give more details as time goes on.
Mondher Mahjoubi: Okay. Thank you, Joyson. I think — sorry, do you have additional questions?
Rajan Sharma: No, that’s everything. Thank you.
Mondher Mahjoubi: Thank you.
Operator:
Henry Wheeler: Okay. We, we have a question offline from Olga Smolentseva at Bryan Garnier. So if possible, could you provide a bit more color on IPH4501 and when we might see it entering the clinical Stage?
Mondher Mahjoubi: Yes, I already gave some colors on this, but maybe an opportunity for Yannis to, again, summarize the ADC approach and the progress of IPH45.
Yannis Morel: Yes, yes. Thank you, Mondher. And sorry if it’s a repeat for some of you. Like Mondher say, we have an antibody engineering platform, out of which the — which is the main output and the main focus is to generate binders against tumor antigen to apply it to our ANKET technology. But some of the binder that we’re generating are more fit-for-purpose for ADC approach. And it’s a field that we are exploring for several years now. But now with this IPH4501, we have made the decision to select one development candidate and as I also said previously, we — we’ll give more update on the next step of development later this year.
