Raju Mohan: Yeah, I’ll take the latter questions, and I’ll have Bill talk about some of the safety endpoints that have been disclosed with the latest numbers data. So we have a very strong belief in our design of the Phase 2 trials across all three trials, very carefully targeted approached the way we’ve done the dose regiments and we’ve €“ or the dose cohorts. We’ve shared the broad strategy across all three programs with psoriatic and then with Crohn’s disease and with psoriatic arthritis. And really at the top dose we’re targeting as we said, biologic-like coverage, trough levels of IC90 for all three indications there. So none of the data that you’ve seen come out, whether it’s specific to the data or now recently the lymphocyte data has any impact on our strategy, but we have a clear line of sight too.
As I said before, Bill’s articulators in previous discussions as well, Chis that our belief in our target coverage with biological-like coverage, we are really aiming for biologic-like efficacy across these trials and nothing here needs to be adjusted or tuned you know. And we’re laser focused on execution of these trials. Let me get back to Bill on your question about CPK and tolerability.
Bill Sandborn: Yeah, I mean for CPK, if you walk back to Deucravacitinib and you know what this, between the prescribing information, what’s available from the summary basis of approval, there is FDA website. About 1% of patients with Deucravacitinib with the 6mg dose had CPK elevations that were grade four and about 1.5% had grade three. It’s a relatively similar low percentage. I think that was seen with the numbers to cater data, and all of these are very different from what you see with either pan-JAK inhibitors like Tofacitinib or JAK 1 selective inhibitors like Upatacitanib. So to our way of thinking, so these are just low rates of events that we’ve already seen a willingness of regulators to give a clean safety label, so that those low rates are labeled, but they are not black box warnings, and I think the data really are just consistent that additional emerging data from my point of view are still consistent with alisteric TYK2 inhibitors being highly selective different from JAK inhibitors and consistent with clean labels, and we believe our product will be right in that zone for tolerability.
Chris Shibutani: Thank you.
Raju Mohan: Thanks Chris.
Operator: Thank you. . And our next question will come from Sam Slutsky of LifeSci Capital. Your line is open.
Unidentified Analyst : Hey, guys! This is Romney on for Sam. Thanks for taking our questions. First, I guess with the NLRP3 inhibitors, can you remind us what level of IL-1β and IL-18 reductions you’re looking for in order to see clinical benefit across the range of indications you could go after? And then secondly, what level of detail do you anticipate providing for the midyear update regarding the extended release formulation of 958? Is it primarily safety NPK data or is there anything else we should look out for?
Raju Mohan: Yeah, let me take the extended release on how big Bill will talk about the level of coverage we expect for the cytokines for NRLP3. So on the ER tablet, we’re quite a pretty meaningful data update at the midyear or somewhere in the midyear time frame that we’ve talked about. So we’ve showed €“ we’ve shown data for the prototypes that we’ve already completed. We’ve showed relevant in Vitro €“ Human Relevant in Vitro data, which as Bill said, the solution across different biorelevant or GI relevant changes. And also showed data from a dynamic GI model, which again is very relevant to what happens in the absorption distribution phase. Under safety, these are short studies. We’ve done longer studies obviously in the MAD Phase, so don’t expect any really safety issues. We’ll show you a comprehensive profile that says we can achieve IC90 coverage with the QD regiment. So that’s what you will see in the midyear timeframe.
