Leonard Schleifer: Yes. I wouldn’t over under-read our situation right here. And it almost doesn’t matter because Regeneron is a data-driven enterprise, and we are all going to see the data coming up, we hope later this quarter. We are totally blinded to the evaluation that was done on the interim analysis. We have said we set it at a reasonable bar, but it was only a fraction of the patients. So, you never know how this is going to turn out, we would not be as confident about something like this compared to another classic Type 2 inflammatory disease. So, you have that on the negative side. But on the positive side, you do have the fact that we have selected patients who have eosinophils and we had this interim analysis. Bottom line is we look forward to the data as well as you do.
Ryan Crowe: Thanks Len. Next question Shannon.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Chris Raymond with Piper Sandler. Your line is now open.
Chris Raymond: Thanks. Maybe a broader question on the VEGF retinal market. Last year, at AAO, there was a lot of discussion and debate around the potential impact on the retinal specialist practices if intravitreal therapies for geographic atrophy are approved. And some folks were talking about, just back of the envelope, this could drive a pretty sizable like 30%-some increase in injection volume, the practices just from treating geographic atrophy patients. As you guys think about this dynamic, we have heard some KOLs sort of offer up potential fix to that, that they would move in a more accelerated fashion to longer duration, longer-acting therapies for wet AMD. Are you guys seeing that? Is that something that we should be thinking about in terms of a driver from short-acting to longer acting?
Leonard Schleifer: Yes. I mean I think despite all of these practice aspects, the primary driver will be that patients would prefer to get a needle in the eye less frequently. With every time you put a needle in the eye, there is a risk of inflammation or more serious complications hemorrhages, detachments, things like that. So, the less you have to do that and get the same benefit is better for the patients from the needle in the eye perspective. And it’s better for the patient from the number of times they have to come to the doctor’s office. These are elderly patients. Frequently, they have to have a caregiver. From a practice perspective, certainly, as many doctors’ offices are overwhelmed by €“ in the number of injections that they are giving and that they could free up time with if you could get the same result.
From a practice point of view with less frequent injections, certainly that would free up more time and would drive them. But I believe at the end of the docs do make the decision with their patient on this primarily because less injections in the eye are just stapled and more convenient for the patient.
George Yancopoulos: Well we also shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that if treatments for geographic accuracy become much more take off and become much more prevalent that they do have a side effect. They are actually increasing levels of macular edema in these patients, which will of course, necessarily treatment there as well.
Ryan Crowe: Thanks. We have time for two more questions, Shannon.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Chris Schott with JPMorgan. Your line is now open.
Chris Schott: Great. Thanks so much for the question. Just on the costim platform, I guess once you land on the right dose for these products, do you expect that there could be accelerating filing pathways given the few options available for most of these patients €“ or do we still need to think about needing to go slowly even with the registrational studies as you are kind of balancing, I guess safety versus efficacy. Thank you.
