With regard to what additional information you will be able to look at honestly, the key information we’ve already revealed in our press release that is to say highly efficacious, statistically significant, clinically meaningful, results versus placebo and we’ve also already shared the numerical results for the opioid control arm. And you can €“ while the control, I’m sorry, the context arm, while that reference arm wasn’t there for statistical comparisons, you can clearly look and see what the context is there. And you’ll have the full safety. The safety profile for VX-548 is really looking very good. You might remember there were no related SAEs in the Phase 2 study. In fact, there were no SAEs at all in bunionectomy. With regard to the study design, the way we’ve set it up is that it is a study versus placebo superiority versus placebo.
Obviously that’s there to demonstrate the efficaciousness as well as the safety profile. And then we have the opportunity to also assess versus opioids. You ask me what are we looking for, if we recapitulate the results in Phase 2 that is a home run. Stuart?
Stuart Arbuckle: Yes. As Reshma said about the design of the study, the primary endpoint is the comparison to placebo, and then we can compare it to the reference arm. I think in either scenario that you describe Dave, what we’ve got here is a very significant commercial opportunity. If you are in addition to being superior to placebo, as good as opioids from an efficacy point of view without all of their associated liabilities, which include addictive potential but aren’t restricted to just addictive potential, then that is something that’s going to be highly valued by the treating community. Obviously, if we’re superior, that’s even better, but something which is as good as opioids from an efficacy point of view, but without all the liabilities would be a very high value medicine.
David Risinger: Thank you.
Operator: The next question will come from Robyn Karnauskas with Truist. Please go ahead.
Robyn Karnauskas: Hi, thank you so much. All right. I’ll go quickly. So we get a lot of questions on Vertex growth, even despite you have a robust pipeline, maybe talk about your thoughts around this 8% and if you would think that would continue to slow or how you’re thinking about it. And then with regard to next generation, despite like more robust efficacy, it still took some time to switch people over to the next generation product, maybe some color on what the bar might be to speed up switching. And then my last question was on chronic pain. I mean, so you’ve got a lot of acute pain data in house, more to come. I was just curious is chronic pain partnerships still on the table and what you think partners are really looking for in order to take that forward? Thank you.
Reshma Kewalramani: Yes. Robyn let me ask Stuart to go first with CF and talk about how we see vanzacaftor and the place for that in the marketplace.
Stuart Arbuckle: Yes. So Robyn, on vanzacaftor, as you know, based on our in vitro data, but also our Phase 2 data, we have good reasons to believe that the vanzacaftor triple combination could provide incremental clinical benefit even over TRIKAFTA, which as you know sets a very high bar. And that’s the way the study is designed to be able to compare vanzacaftor to TRIKAFTA. I think there’s really two patient populations for whom that would be an attractive proposition if it delivers that profile. One is patients who are currently being treated with a CFTR modulator who may be interested in switching to something which offers greater clinical benefit. In addition, we haven’t really talked about this part of the population for a while, but there are some patients who’ve discontinued CFTR modulators for a variety of reasons over time.
