Operator: Thank you. Our next question comes from Silvan Tuerkcan with JMP Securities. You may proceed.
Silvan Tuerkcan: Thank you for taking my question and congrats on the progress with the quarter. On vobra duo, it seems like enrollment in the trial was going slow, so you remove that control arm, what gives you confidence that enrollment will speed up because your active arm of technically unproven therapy is still competing now with these radiotherapies that are new and that people seem to like. Yes, have you noticed anything in terms of uptake there with the removal of the control arm? And then I have a follow-up regarding the prevention sale. Thank you.
Scott Koenig: So, as we noted, these changes have occurred just recently. So, I have no view on how quickly the enrollment is going to go with the removal of the control arm. The expectation based on and as well as investigators has been very positive. What we had seen is that patients did not want to ultimately go on to a study at this point with a controlled population. That was the biggest obstacle that we were facing as we started this study. And as you know, there was a significant editorial in talking about ARAT €“ second ARAT control arms in studies that came out just as we were starting the study. And so, there is much more reluctance from the Europeans with regard to using that. So, given all those conditions, we didn’t wait and we said, alright, we’re going to make these changes.
We did it rapidly. The team did a fantastic job of implementing these changes and working with the regulatory agencies. And so, I think we’re in a good position based on the feedback we’ve heard from investigators around the world. In fact, I can tell you is that when we were at ASCO GU, we were just about to make these changes and had and investigators who were on the trial and they were very enthusiastic about these changes. So, we’ll have to wait and see.
Silvan Tuerkcan: Great. Thank you. And could you €“ with respect to TZIELD, could you help me understand some of the wording. So, it says that the company retains the right to receive 50% share of royalties on global net sales above a certain annual threshold. Is that still something that could come your way or is that also now going to the way of DRI, post the deal €“ if that deal closes?
Scott Koenig: No, no, no, that was the part of the agreement we made with DRI. This was a, what I call the kicker in addition to the $250 million potential milestone payments, which we described today. If sales reach a particular total on a given year, everything above will be shared 50-50 between DRI and MacroGenics on the net sales above that level. So, this €“ given what Sanofi just paid for this drug, I presume they have a lot of confidence of being able to achieve significant sales of this drug and certainly this particular sales target could be achieved.
Silvan Tuerkcan: Great. So, you did not all of the royalties ?
Scott Koenig: No, exactly. That’s the point. We sold significant royalties, but above a certain level, we will participate in a significant single-digit royalty there.
Jim Karrels: And to add to that, we fully retained the $335 million in milestones from the original Provention transaction.
Scott Koenig: Right. So, just to put a point on this whole thing is that, if you look at the total milestones between what Provention Bio might owe us and DRI might owe us, given Sanofi’s payment here, we believe that these are potentially achievable milestones, all of them and that totals by itself without this , which I just described to you is a total of $435 million.
