Antony Mattessich: Yeah. As with most things with biotech, you really have to choose the things you invest in. And clearly wet AMD, now that the superiority pathway is open in the US to us, becomes our number one investment priority. We’ve talked a lot about our sensitivity to dilution at the current stock levels that we have. So we’re making no firm choices about what we fund additionally beyond this first pivotal and of course, then the second pivotal. That would be our primary path to market. Wet AMD, as you know, is a much larger market. I think we have a really interesting, or an interesting possibility to become the standard of care in that $15 billion global marketplace. So that is our number one priority. We’re still extremely excited about both diabetic macular edema and diabetic and non-proliferative on diabetic disease.
But that’s something that we’ll make a decision later on, whether we’re going to fund or not. A lot of this depends on whether we are able to align with a partner by that time. The companies with whom we’re speaking are all large strategics that would have an interest in not only looking at NPDR, but also DME and also a retinal vein occlusion. So there would be a number of other things that could be brought online as well, looking at the possibilities of this drug and the overall marketplace, but we’re — right now, we’re deciding to fund the trial that’s in front of us.
Jon Wolleben: Got it. Thank again for taking the question.
Antony Mattessich: Thanks for asking the question.
Operator: Thank you. Please hold for our next question. Our next question comes from Joe Catanzaro of Piper Sandler.
Joe Catanzaro: Hey, everybody. Thanks for taking my questions. Maybe two on sort of design and feasibility. First on design, I know you’re not disclosing whether you will include loading doses or not. But I guess when we look back at in prior experience with TKI and how it performed in patients with control disease at baseline, what would be a reason why you wouldn’t include loading doses across both arms of the study? Thanks. And I have a follow-up.
Antony Mattessich: That’s a fantastic question, Joe. And one that I’m going to choose not to answer, but certainly we will — we have data both in naives that are uncontrolled and we have data in previously treated who have been controlled. And clearly, we’re using all the data that we have in order to be able to anticipate the likely response to the OTX-TKI arm, and we think we’ve come up with a great solution, which we’ll make you aware of in the relatively short future.
Rabia Ozden: Maybe if I can add, Joe, again, to Antony’s point, we are not saying we are doing loading doses or not doing loading doses. And this design is absolutely very carefully told out with many top leaders in involved. And that’s why when you see the design, you will just appreciate the way that is designed that way. When we are designing this, we thought about three things. One is patient safety. The second is, the acceptability to retina physicians in the States. And also — the third is to make it a good design that we show the TKI activity at the end of the trial. Just wanted to give that color as well.
Joe Catanzaro: Okay, thanks. That’s helpful. And maybe a follow-up, I guess, on feasibility. But I guess it depends on exactly what the primary endpoint is and when, but I guess I’m thinking about the rescue criteria and similarity of difference relative to what you’ve been using. I know there’s been some discussion around setting the criteria in a way that would give TKI the best chance of success, but in a way where physicians are comfortable allowing patients to lose some degree of vision. I hope there’s a question in there, but, hopefully you got it.
