So, it’s early days. They’re all — all 3 of those components are in signal-seeking studies, and we hope to have a lot more to say about it as we approach the end of this year.
Paul Hudson: Thanks, John, and the in-house confidence builds a little bit, right? The things that we’ve seen, not showed you, of course, that’s the way it goes. So let’s go to the second part of the question. Peter, around playing to win. First of all, I’m delighted that people fully appreciate, we’re playing to win rare, we’re playing to win in vaccines, we’re playing to win in immunology. That’s quite a lot of playing to win. On oncology, I think we just have to be pragmatic. And I think — I hope you realize that we are with the setback with Amcenestrant — just also to remind ourselves that was a medicine that had an effect that could have been launched in some form but would not have competed the level so we would consider playing to win.
So we have to set a really high bar for ourselves. And of course, with our IL-2 retreating to Phase 1/2 on the dose interval, we may yet still come back and say something very meaningful that with the internal reduction, what that means in efficacy. The ability to increase the dose was why — or reduce the interval was one of the reasons why we took the decision to invest it in the first place. But I think we have to concede that maybe our efforts are naturally moving towards an earlier oncology positioning. We’re doing some very interesting things, setting a very high bar, John’s just touched on some of it, but it is earlier. So, it consumes a little less investment. It allows us to allocate more towards the areas where we’re having a really important effect.
We’re not in areas because of history. You saw that when we exited diabetes and type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular, where we think we can make a massive difference, and then we’re all in. So you know that, but we have to deliver the profiles of these medicines as they emerge. Otherwise, we’re not going to throw good money after bad, coming as a me too late. That’s the company we’re leaving behind. So we may go back to the magic a bit earlier in oncology, fair, and hope to surprise, but we are really playing to win across the areas that you mentioned.
Operator: Next question will be from Steve Scala from Cowen.
Steve Scala: Actually, I was going to ask about cardiology and diabetes. Given the renewed interest in these categories, does Sanofi have any interest in reengaging in either of them? Presumably, Sanofi still has much internal expertise and could make that shift easier than just about any other company. So, I’m curious if you’ve thought about that. Second question is for John. Your BTK inhibitor competitors in MS continue to claim they haven’t seen liver tox in their studies. Curious what you conclude from that. Is it just a matter of time until they do? Is it the population they’re studying, perhaps it’s a different geography, or could there be differences in the molecules? Thank you.
