Talat Imran: Sure. So it’s a great question, Bert. First off, thank you for the questions. In terms of our RT-111 CT-P43, we are in discussions with Celltrion right now to figure out how to prioritize. It would either be psoriasis for Crohn’s disease, I would imagine. And part of it will be determining the cost, the time to proof-of-concept and also the regulatory plan and if there’s PK read on from what we’re doing to whichever trial we decide to run to other indications. So can’t provide guidance around that at this moment in time, but we have time. The Phase 1 is a healthy volunteer study. So we’ll take this year to kind of coalesce around the plan and we’ll share that early next year. In terms of what we’re planning to do with the RaniPill HC, immunology I think as a general area is right in the sweet spot for what we’re doing, chronic diseases, crowded categories where differentiation to oral with a monoclonal antibody could be tremendous.
After that, we are looking at the delivery of antisense oligonucleotides and siRNA. We’re exploring that in discovery this year. And I would like to look in the future. I think Bert, we’ve talked about this in the past at, if daily administration and increasing serum C trough levels, if you will, improves the efficacy of monoclonal antibody, there’s some evidence of that with certain drugs in the past. So we would want to look at that with oncology, whether it’s as a standalone or as a maintenance to one of the popular oncology drugs like pembro or an evo. So that’s for maybe next year. We have plenty on our plate as it is now, but that’s kind of how we’re thinking about utilizing the RaniPill HC.
Bert Hazlett: Thanks for the color. Appreciate it.
Talat Imran: Yes, absolutely. Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. Please stand by for our next question. Our last question comes from the line of Mitchell Kapoor with H. C. Wainwright. Your line is open.
Mitchell Kapoor: Hi, team. Hope everyone’s well and thanks for taking the questions. I wanted to start out with RT-102 and I wanted to understand more about the PK profile in terms of have you — do you think you’ve established a margin of safety at this point for moving forward in a way that if efficacy follows PK, which we would expect that it probably should, could PK look slightly different in the next trials and still be considered positive?
Talat Imran: Sure. So thank you for the question, Mitchell. And I realize — and you’re asking that that I failed to answer one of Annabel’s questions, so I’ll do both in the same shot. We’re looking at doses between 10 and 40 micrograms, so 10, 20 and 40 specifically to address the question you just had, which is if we’re getting better or significantly better bone growth, I would caution that we had a lower AE incidence in our single dose and even in our multi dose, well, we didn’t compare in the multi dose. But compared to the — even the 80 microgram Rani oral versus the 20 microgram Forteo in the single dose, it looked cleaner from an AE perspective. We need to conduct that study in the Phase 2 or look at the AE rates, I should say. But through the dose selection, I think we can find a sweet spot where we have the efficacy we need for non-inferiority and the safety profile that is commensurate with what you see with Forteo currently.
Mitchell Kapoor: Okay. That’s very helpful. And then on the RT-101 program, could you just provide an update there and when we might be able to see more development from that program or what the plan could going forward?
