Did they give any reason as to why they were hesitant? Was it cost? Was it efficacy? If you could give some color on that? And then a final one to squeeze in, just related to the question before on partnering. If you could let us know what you would look for in an ideal partner, should you choose the partner, that would be very useful. Thank you.
Jean-Paul Kress: Hey, Philippa. Thanks for the questions. So, on the first one, on the evolving landscape of myelofibrosis, including for the regulators, it all starts with this very high unmet medical need with the current — same current standard of care for the — for decades now and the appetite for new options. And again, as we’ve said several times, and we hear consistently, the combination in first-line is the number one opportunity to improve the standard of care here. That’s very important for all stakeholders, including the regulators and the agencies. And based on our ongoing interactions, our experience, the recent approvals we’ve observed, even with mixed clinical trial results, this tells us that regulators will look at the totality of the data, inclusive of efficacy and safety results.
Very important to keep in mind. Now, on the market research question and the physician feedback. We’ve been — we had a couple of those market research along the way since we acquired Constellation, and the great thing is that it has really, really evolved from two or three years ago when there was the novelty factor about combination. People were still a bit, wondering how they would do that first-line. And now we have an overwhelming number of physicians, more than 80%, both in community hematology and academic setting, who are ready for the combination first-line, which is great, and show how we have been imprinting the space with our engagements based on our Phase 2 data. Your last question on partnering, again here, when you partner, you let value go.
You have to be very cautious, Philippa. I mean we have the whole slate right now, so it’s a great position to be in. Then, we will know more later. And again, if partnering would come in the discussion, I mean this is probably more for ex-U.S., and because we believe that we have what we need in the U.S., but we’ll keep you posted on this one.
Philippa Pritchard: Great. Thank you.
Jean-Paul Kress: Thanks.
Operator: The next question comes from the line of Manos Mastorakis with Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead.
Manos Mastorakis: Thank you very much. Just quickly wanted to clarify, if you could give a bit more color actually, how important you think it is to show both SVR35 an TSS50? So, would an extremely positive outcome on one endpoint mitigate lower efficacy outcome on the other endpoint? And also a commercial one. So, given the synergies in the salesforce with Monjuvi and pelabresib, in a scenario of ideal positive results, would you expect to see further investment into the salesforce? And thus, could we make an argument that Monjuvi sales could potentially benefit as a result? Thank you.
Tim Demuth: Hey, Manos. This is Tim. As Jean-Paul stated, based on the discussions with regulators, the assumption is, SVR35 and symptom improvement are important points that we’ll look at. Ongoing interactions and experience from recent approvals in the myelofibrosis space with mixed results certainly tell us that regulators really appreciate the unmet needs in this patient population and that’s what they are responding to. In addition to spleen volume and symptomatology, we are also looking in the study at the changes, absolute as well as percent change in symptom score. We’re looking at PFS, overall survival, and as I mentioned in the prepared remarks, duration of spleen and symptom response. And, we are confident that the comprehensive data set that we will be able to share at the time will really demonstrate and underscore the potential of the combination therapy to regulators.
Jean-Paul Kress: On your question two, regarding salesforce synergies, as mentioned, there is a very high overlap between the treaters, more than 80%, especially in the community hematology side. So, we would most likely need to do some incremental investments to have the right share of voice and, be just at the level of the opportunity here. But we are not going to start from scratch. It’s qualitative and quantitative. Qualitatively, because we already know the targets and we have the relationships and the engagements well oiled, and also quantitative because it’s not going to be a full buildup which would require more OpEx. You ask about the Monjuvi benefit, well, for sure it’s positive because you will have our reps out there and our medical affairs people having two products, which means the franchise, which means more commitment towards hematology. And with these two products on the market, we would definitely be as a leader which is virtuous.
Operator: Ladies and gentlemen, that was the last question. I hand back to you, Julia Neugebauer, for closing comments.
Julia Neugebauer: Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today’s conference call. If any of you would like to follow-up, MorphoSys’ Investor Relations team is available for the remainder of the day. Once again, thank you for joining. Have a great day and goodbye.
