So, the ad com today, we’ve all seen the Phase 3 data. The trial showed a very convincing benefit on asthma exacerbation, so we feel really good about the efficacy and safety profile there and we’re excited to see PT027 play out.
Operator: Our next question comes from Andrew Baum with Citi.
Andrew Baum: First one in relation to the Merck deal. I think this is the first synthetic royalty deal you’ve done with a large pharma since the PALLAS IBRANCE deal, which obviously didn’t have the outcome that arguably you would have wanted. I guess the concern is that a large, well-capitalized pharma company just doesn’t have the same capital constraints as mid cap and, therefore, the assets they’re willing to offer up are going to be the worst ones and inherently believe in less. I know your structure in terms of the Phase 2 addresses that, derisks it, but you’re still going to be investing up to 300-odd-million for the Phase 3. So, just when you think about the equivalent opportunities, does that figure in your thinking at all?
Or you believe there are other motivations such as assets in non-core areas which could make fertile returns for Royalty? That’s the first question. And the second question is, again, for the Merck asset, in terms of allocating that 300-odd-million, do you have a say in exactly where and which indications you opt into? And do you have any input to the design of the trials given you’re going to be investing potentially a substantial part of the Phase 3 costs?
Pablo Legorreta: A few comments and then I’ll pass it on to Chris. But I think we tend to be passive in these kinds of collaborations. And we often do share our views with the companies and then it’s sort of up to them to see whether they want to take our comments or not. It has happened in the past that they have actually taken our comments and our views, perspectives, and use that in their own clinical development, how they think about clinical development. The other comment, the way you started the comment was by making reference to the IBRANCE transaction we did, which was quite some time ago. And I think, just from a very big picture perspective, these kind of financings are quite novel. We’re being very creative here. So one thing to say is that it takes time for us to actually change the mentality among these big companies and how they behave.
And it’s obviously an effort that we’re very excited about because we see huge potential in collaborating with Big Pharma. But it takes time. We have to go in, we have to talk to senior management and try to explain the benefits of a transaction like the one we did with Merck. And you mentioned that they were cash rich or something to that extent that they had a lot of cash, which is totally true. A lot of these companies have a lot of cash on their balance sheet. So it’s not the decision to actually collaborate with us. It’s not driven by their lack of cash or excess of cash. It’s actually driven by several other things that are quite important. One is risk mitigation. In that deal, for example, if you look at the amount of capital that’s required to bring this drug to market, it’s about $1.1 billion.
