Richard Hawkins: I want to add, too, is that our clinical incentive, the Advisory Board, a group of really this team pediatric endocrinologists are also well pursing the results, and those results were well accepted, let’s put it that way.
Peter Rosenthal: All right. Good to hear. And I look forward to the upcoming presentation. So if you don’t mind just squeeze one last question in. So can you just sort of help me understand the rationale for expanding into Idiopathic Short Stature, why would 201’s mechanism of action have an effect in that patient population?
Richard Hawkins: David, why don’t we talk about mechanism of action and ISS.
David Karpf: Sure. By increasing baseline growth hormone AUC, it is very likely that ISS patient with ISS will accelerate their high velocity. It may be similar to hormone where you don’t get quite the same high velocity as you’re doing in more severe GHD kids. But it should — I see every reason to expect it should be comparable to the effects of growth hormone.
Richard Hawkins: I think if I may add one thing to that, many of those kids — almost all those kids would be expected to pass our PEM test, right? And they all have the capacity to release growth hormone endogenously upon stimulation. And that’s a key part of why we’re thinking about that population.
David Karpf: Right. I mean, showed in normal adults, you can substantially increase from baseline growth hormone and IGF-1. So there’s every reason to expect that would apply to kids’ ISS.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Catherine Novack with Jones Trading.
Catherine Novack: Congrats on completing enrollment. I want to talk a little bit about LUM-201 compared with the efficacy of LUM-201 versus recombinant growth hormone. I know that you’re not necessarily looking at efficacy as the primary in the Phase II, but I’m curious about what’s clinically meaningful to prescribers. Hypothetically, let’s say, you end up with LUM-201 having 8.5 centimeters AHV and GH showing 10 as may be expected. How important is that difference in the first year versus other things like safety, cost, convenience, durability when it comes to how prescribers are looking at these different regimens.
Richard Hawkins: John, I’m going to let you start with the answer and David, maybe you finish, and I’ll probably time into. So go ahead, John.
John McKew: And I think first, we’ve given you kind of the general feedback from the KOLs and the investigators on our trial about their — kind of how they’re feeling about LUM-201 and thinking about moving forward. And that’s really because the efficacy of the drug is actually running at a level of growth that we had anticipated and we had foretold based on historical data. And we’ve also, at our interim, talked about the safety profile of this drug being quite good. And I think those 2 key things of meeting the expectations on the efficacy of our drug and no safety concerns in this population, I think, are key contributors to the excitement that people have. They also have an understanding of what the expectation of growth hormone growth in this kind of less severe, moderate idiopathic growth hormone group of kids is.
