Lonnel Coats: Go ahead. No, no, go ahead, Yas.
Yasmeen Rahimi: No, I was just going to say like maybe for investors who haven’t had a chance to look at the other SGLT2 class to generate that type of data. How does that compare? If you could just maybe remind them, that could be very helpful.
Lonnel Coats: Great question. Well, thank you, Yas. So I’ll provide a little bit of color to that. And again, I don’t want to speak for other companies data, but there was other data that has been similarly presented for empagliflozin and their data does not show a separation until 90 days. At 30 days, there is no difference in the heart endpoints of hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death. There is no benefit in overall mortality at either 30 or 90 days. And at 90 days, the similar endpoints of all cause death or heart failure related events barely achieved significance. And as a reminder and has been presented by Dr. Pitt at 90 days all cause death or heart failure related events for sotagliflozin had a 52% reduction with a P value of 0.0008. So I think that really just summarizes the differences and we believe that it could be in part due to the dual mechanism of action on both SGLT1 as well as SGLT2.
Yasmeen Rahimi: Thank you. And then last quick question on RELIEF-PHN study that’s going to readout this quarter. What do you hope to gain from this exploratory analysis? And just remind us also sort of the differentiation of this type of pain versus diabetic neuropathy. And thank you for taking my questions.
Lonnel Coats: Yes, great. Yes, thank you, Yas. And again, I assume that you are referring to what we’re going to be presenting next Monday or for the PHN trial?
Yasmeen Rahimi: Both, yes, both questions actually. What you be presenting on Monday and what will you be presenting from early PHN, yes.
Lonnel Coats: So thank you for the clarification. So on Monday we really hope to present a more fulsome summary of the overall efficacy results, really putting a qualitative metric around the type of pain and the impact across a range of additional factors that are clinically meaningful to patients as we hear from our experts and providers also will be demonstrating or showing data looking at what happens to the patients after they finish treatment because the current standards of care have some liabilities even after you’ve stopped treatment, that it takes a long time for the side effects to resolve. And they have what’s called a rebound effect, where often the patients have an acceleration of their pain if and when they have to stop therapy.
So we think that there could be some interesting results presented along those lines in addition to more data on the primary endpoint of the study at the end of six weeks. So we think that Monday will provide some additional very important context regarding the DPN study. Regarding the PHN study that was always designed as a more of a proof-of-concept trial. As a reminder that is a much smaller study and was really looking to validate the mechanism of action and the ability of LX9211 to impact a second neuropathic pain disease state. The traditional advantages of the PHN population is it’s considered a more homogeneous population with a clear etiology of the virus itself damaging the nerve as opposed to DPN, which could have a number of different cause that all result in diabetic painful neuropathy.
So while we believe that the PHN results at the end of the year could be interesting and helpful, I think we always anticipated that the DPN study would be the key driver of demonstration of efficacy and the overall safety and tolerability profile of LX9211.
Yasmeen Rahimi: Thank you so much. I’ll jump back into the queue.
