Ross Moat: Okay. Thanks David. So, this is Ross. Happy to answer the part around the restart patient stops and I guess just generally about what we’re seeing around patient duration on therapy as well as a reminder that we really educate physicians that the duration of therapy should be linked to the natural history of the disease, which is three years as a median from a natural history and still one-third of the patients suffer from the disease five years out from their initial index episode as well. So, of course, the length of treatment should depend upon how long they’ve suffered from recurrent pericarditis at the time of diagnosis and treatment. And what we’re seeing in the real-world setting is that the initial average time for treatment is around 14 months.
The median is 12%. The restart rate is around 45% of all those patients who have cease therapy the first time around and come back on to therapy, most of which within eight-week time period. And we’re seeing a total average duration of around 20 months in total across all the patient populations. So, your part of the question around the nature of the patients, I think it’s fair to say that there’s no real commonality in terms of patient demographics that we can pick out at this moment in time around those that are more likely to stop or stay on for longer and so on. It really just comes down to how long they’ve suffered from the disease at the time of diagnosis and what their expected natural history is how long they’re going to need treatment for with ARCALYST knowing that, of course, there’s always a safety net there that if they do stop and they stop too early and there’s still underlying auto information present or the patient suffer again, they can go back on to treatment.
But obviously, we want to avoid that happening through robust proper treatment duration of ARCALYST in the first place.
Sanj Patel: And David, this is Sanj. Thanks for your question with regards to the cohort from the KPL-404 study in RA. We’re definitely looking forward to those data from Cohorts 1, 2, and 3 in the first quarter, as you mentioned. As I mentioned earlier, we’re definitely excited about the potential of KPL-404 for both RA, but also do believe there is a potential to show hopefully some differentiated effects and some strong efficacy, hopefully across a number of autoimmune indications. At this point, we’ve not disclosed what those would be, but certainly washes space. We’re looking forward to some hopefully exciting developments in the future, data dependent.
David Nierengarten: Thanks.
Operator: Thank you. Our next question will come from Geoff Meacham of Bank of America.
Unidentified Analyst: Hey thanks for taking the question. This is John Joy [ph] for Geoff. This is I guess I have two quick questions. One is, how are you guys thinking about sort of total prescriber TAM and payer like TAM, do you think there’s still headroom to grow? Or are you starting to kind of see that flatten out a bit? And second, just as you continue to grow, how are you thinking about capital structure?
Ross Moat: Maybe I’ll just take the first part, John. Thanks for the question, and then I’ll hand over to Mark or Sanj for the second bit. And really around the prescriber growth and space just bear in mind that we still see that there’s a huge opportunity ahead. We announced at the turn of the year that we reached around 5% penetration when we looked at how many patients were on therapy at the end of 2022. And while we haven’t updated that figure as of yet, that speaks to the opportunity that’s still there and the fact that patients are reasonably widely dispersed around the US, and we’re seeing the good growth in both the number of individual prescribers as well as repeat prescribers. I think all to speak to the opportunity that stand out there. I feel that we’re still relatively embryonic in our launch with a pretty exciting opportunity ahead to reach many, many more recurrent pericarditis patients who are suffering.
