Sukumar Nagendran: Yes. Thanks, Sean. So your question is an important one. So let me start by saying again, I think somebody earlier asked about Peter Marks and the FDAs position when it comes to ultra-rare disease, where there is no treatment available. So I think those remarks at the MDA were very important and hopefully we’ll have some strategic impact on any sponsor that’s dealing with an ultra-rare disease GAN or otherwise. Now, as Sean pointed out, as we continue our in-depth detailed analysis, the big question here is it’s not just a MFM32. There are multiple other efficacy endpoints. And the question is, will our intrathecal gene therapy actually show broad clinical impact, some or most of which could be collectively considered clinically significant, whether it’s really in a very large way or even in a moderate fashion in our ultra-rare disease that allows us to make a case in behalf of patients and as the sponsor for potential accelerated approval or an approval that is acceptable such that we can make this medicine available to the patient community.
And as Sean pointed out, it’s the collective birth of data I think that could eventually make the case for this therapy for further review at the FDA and for us to make the case for the submission of a meeting with the FDA in the second quarter. So I hope you understand what I’m trying to explain. It’s not just MFM32. There are multiple other endpoints that I think that we’ve observed with the help of the NIH and other experts that are presenting this ultra-rare disease called GAN, that our product may have clinical impact. And I think that collective case is what may give strength to the potential review and approval of the product. So take you, and I’m keeping my fingers crossed, that’s what we can do for this patient community. Thank you.
Silvan Tuerkcan: Great. Thank you very much.
Operator: Thank you. Our next question is from Yun Zhong with BTIG. Please proceed with your question.
Yun Zhong: Hi. Thank you very much for taking the question. So my question is on the Rett syndrome program. And so the change in the patient age to treat patient as young as 15 years old. In addition to helping patient enrollment maybe, do you have any other goals that you would like to achieve in terms of treatment outcome analysis and the initial data? Would that be safety only or will you be able to provide any additional information?
Sean Nolan: Suku, would you like to take this question, please?
Sukumar Nagendran: Yes, Sean, I will. Absolutely. So this is another very important question. So there was a very important clinical reason that my team and obviously as a sponsor, we decided to submit this updated version for amendment to Health Canada because by dropping the age to 15, and we do have pre-clinical data and other data that supports us doing this, it enables us to treat a younger group of patients, which we think in this neurodevelopmental disorder may allow us to have greater impact over time. So the question on the table is, a) by dropping the age and having certain endpoints in our efficacy measures and also evaluating safety, will we not only have access hopefully to more patients, given that it’s now a larger patient pool, but could we also show greater clinical impact that goes beyond safety in a much shorter timeframe?
