Brian Lian: Hi, Jay. Yes it’s a good question. And I’m not super close to the FGF21 mechanism. So I’m probably not the best person to ask there. But our understanding has always been that the F4 patient is just different from the F3 and earlier. They’re just in a sicker state. The liver is far more advanced in disease and it’s just different. We’ve seen failures in that indication before. Maybe if it was a longer study, there would have been a higher probability of success. But I don’t know. That’s just a speculative comment. We will have to look at our biopsy data to drive any further decisions on going forward in cirrhotics versus just non-cirrhotics. But we don’t have the data right now to support that decision.
Jay Olson: Okay. All right. Sounds reasonable. And then congrats on getting the late breaker at AASLD for VK2809. Anything you’d like to highlight for investors to look out for in that presentation?
Brian Lian: Yes, thanks, Jay. Well, we will be looking at some subsets. Diabetics versus non-diabetics because the prior 12-week study didn’t have diabetics in that study. We’ll also report data on effect sizes in F2 versus F3 to see if there is any differential efficacy as patients are more advanced in disease. Those sorts of things would be the incremental data around the presentation.
Jay Olson: Okay. Great. We’ll look forward to that. Thanks again for taking the questions.
Brian Lian: Thanks a lot, Jay.
Operator: The next question comes from Annabel Samimy with Stifel. Please go ahead.
Annabel Samimy: Hi. Thanks for taking my questions. I wanted to just pull back and look a little bit more big picture. So given the naturally higher potency of the dual agonists and the competitive profile of the injectable, which I think compares very favorably to others, and also the recent benchmarks set by other oral GLPs, I guess, have you reset your expectations around what we might see for the Phase 1? I guess they were relatively modest based on what we’re seeing in some of the new benchmarks that are being set. So can you put some context around this? And are your more modest expectations possibly related to like a molecule-size question for dual agonists versus single agonists that could impact bioavailability? Thanks.
Brian Lian: Thanks, Annabel. So we think that the dual mechanism is a really competitive mechanism. I think over time, the addition of a second agonist mechanism should allow the efficacy to exceed a monoagonist. Whether or not that’s evident to 28 days, I mean, I don’t know. We’re still looking for if we see something in the 1% to 2% in excess of placebo, that would probably, and good tolerability and safety, that would probably be sufficient to move it forward into phase 2. But I think it’s important to keep in mind these are 28-day PK safety and tolerability studies, and they’re being compared in ways that are almost like phase 3 registration studies. And there’s a reason you don’t treat obesity in 28 days. It takes years to develop, and it takes longer than 28 days to really effectively treat. Registration studies have to be at least 52 weeks. So I understand all the comparisons, but we’re not too worried about our mechanism being non-competitive.
Annabel Samimy: Yes, I’m not worried about the non-competitiveness of the mechanism. I think the dual agonists are pretty strong. I’m just wondering if you had any reservations about getting a larger molecule into an oral formulation, if that is one of the reasons for your more cautious or conservative expectations.
Brian Lian: No, no. It’s just generally the exposure levels from oral peptides are lower than sub-Q. So that would tend to lead to a lower level of efficacy long-term. And that’s kind of what we’ve seen in other settings as well. But over 28 days, I think we’re just looking for a signal of are the exposures there? Are we seeing some weight loss? And is the tolerability acceptable?
Annabel Samimy: Okay, fair enough. And then on NASH, I guess, what are your thoughts on the impact of some of these anti-obesity products on NASH? Is it more of a growth impactor for the market, or will it potentially eat into the opportunity? I mean, we’re recognizing that the market is large and very heterogeneous, but some KOLs have cited meaningful reductions in the market. Just want to hear your thoughts on that, even with your own compound that’s shown, 2735 has shown also liver fat content reductions for NAFLD patients. So I’m just trying to think about how you’re considering the impact on the market.
Brian Lian: Yes, it’s a really heterogeneous market. You have diabetics and non-diabetics, obese patients and non-obese patients. You have patients who have heavy fibrosis and not a lot of liver fat, and you have patients with a lot of liver fat and fibrosis. So it leads to the possibility of multiple combination therapies. I do think that expanding use of GLP-1s might lead to that being looked at as more of a sort of backbone type of therapy, but I don’t think that precludes an opportunity for more directed drugs that are really targeting the liver and address specific features of NASH, where the single and dual agonists and triple agonists don’t necessarily do that directly. So I think maybe the increase in awareness from using more GLP-1s in NASH in patients with NAFLD could help actually some of the more directed agents in that some patients who might not respond as well on liver histology might see earlier use of a combination agent with a GLP-1 or other dual agonists.
Annabel Samimy: Okay, got it. And then one last question if I may. Could you remind us what your patent situation is with both products?
Brian Lian: Well, with the dual agonists, the IP estate was run beyond 2040. With the VK2809, the thyroid beta agonist, we have multiple patents in the 2037 to I think 2043 range now. The composition of matter for that compound would expire in the mid-2030 time frame. I think it’s May 2030 with a five-year extension on it. But we have at least five additional patents that begin to expire 2037 out to 2043, I believe, for this one.
Annabel Samimy: Okay. Great. Thank you so much.
Brian Lian: Thanks, Annabel.
Operator: Our next question comes from Joe Pantginis from HC Wainwright. Please go ahead.
