Peter Heerma: Yeah, I think there’s two elements here. I think it helps us to further broaden how physicians think about their addressable patients. I think that’s one. But I also think that there will be a broadening of the prescriber base. And I think with new data it provides further confidence that physician that may become a sense right now. And that’s something that we have been planning for in our targeting efforts. I was calling out the 4500 nephrologists that we have been able to reach. We are planning to expand that further to ultimately 6,000 nephrologists and the broadening of the prescriber base with the broadening of addressable patients I think gives me good confidence for the second half of the year. And ultimately, after we have announced the data and we have the updated label that we will continue to see growth for FILSPARI in years to come.
Greg Harrison: Great. That’s helpful. If I could sneak one more in how would you characterize the flow of new patient start forms throughout Q2? Was it steady or maybe accelerating towards the end of the quarter?
Eric Dube: Yeah. Great, question. Peter would you like to take that?
Peter Heerma: Yeah, Greg. I would say, it’s steadily increasing.
Eric Dube: Yeah, I think that’s right. What I would reflect is that it’s increasing and we would expect as we’ve seen with other launches that there is variability in the first year. Importantly though Greg as we talk about what we would expect in the second half of this year would be an overall growth in both patient start forms as well as revenues given the strong demand that we’ve seen as well as the great expansion of payer access that will certainly reflect in growth in both of those in the back half of the year. But quarter-to-quarter or month-to-month we would expect to see some variability. But we are certainly in a great position to achieve our ambition of making FILSPARI the foundational therapy and ultimately a blockbuster medicine in IgAN.
Greg Harrison: Great. Thanks for taking the question.
Operator: We will take the next question from the line of Joseph Schwartz with Leerink Partners. Joseph Schwartz, your line is now open.
Joseph Schwartz: Thanks so much and congrats on the quarter. I was wondering if you could walk us through some of the powering assumptions that have gone into the PROTECT design. I think I saw somewhere that PROTECT was powered to detect a 30% difference in proteinuria after 36 weeks and also a 2.9 mL per min per year difference in total eGFR slope. And then I think you repowered the study, but then a paper came out by incur curve it all that predicted that a 30% difference in proteinuria would produce a 1.67 unit difference in total eGFR slope. And so I’m wondering since sparsentan actually produced 41% relative reduction which I think incur curve would predict to drive a 2.77 unit difference in total eGFR slope how to interpret these relationships given that companies usually power studies for smaller changes than they expect to see.
And so my question, I guess is given the trials been repowered ones and some of these relationships have evolved over time. How was the trial initially powered? How do you see it being powered now? And we’ve heard maybe it’s just with respect to FSGS that very small changes could be clinically meaningful would changes of a smaller magnitude still be possible to drive a stat sig result in PROTECT?
Eric Dube: Yeah. Joe, thank you for the question. I think Jula is well poised to be able to provide some clarity on that question.
