Phil Pang: Yes, so to answer that question, I think, again, context is important. For 2218 plus interferon alone, for only 24 weeks, we saw only a 5% rate of seroclearance on treatment. So I think anything beyond that is biological proof of principle that 3434 when added to 2218 interferon is moving the needle. And of course, if you can get there without interferon and 2218 plus 3434, I think that would also be quite impressive. So I think both of those things are important steps forward. And then of course the higher the on-treatment response rate, the more excited we’ll be in terms of whether or not this is going to be able to make a meaningful difference to patients.
Eva Privitera: But what delta between, what delta would you anticipate between the on-treatment and the off-treatment? Is there any way to know?
Phil Pang: Well, I think one of the exciting things that we saw at Eazl was one of the first times that there was a predictor of off treatment response. Now, granted, it was a small cohort of patients, but we demonstrated in that small cohort of patients that patients who seroconverted, not just serocleared, but seroconverted to anti-S antibodies at high levels, greater than 100 or 200, that they were the ones most likely to have an off-treatment response. So certainly we’re going to be looking at that metric in our studies to see what the off-treatment response will be. Clearly in our studies it went from 30% down to 16%, but really I think it’s going to be guided by which patients mount an anti-S response and what level of anti-S response that they mount, and we’ll look forward to seeing what that data looks like.
Eva Privitera: Great, thank you very much.
Operator: Our next question comes from Mike Ulz with Morgan Stanley.
Mike Ulz: Hey guys, thanks for taking the question. Maybe just another follow up on the March Part B data expected later this year. Just based on what you’ve seen so far, in terms of some of the other studies from Part A, et cetera, do you think 24 weeks will be enough? Or do you think you may have to go to 48 weeks? And is this a situation where longer term tends to be better? Or could there be a reason why longer would not be better for some reason? And then maybe your thoughts on the need for PEG interferon or not. Thanks.
Phil Pang: Great. So that sounded, I think, like a three-part question, Mike. So let me make sure I get all three parts. So the reason for longer being better biologically is, of course, based on historical precedent that when you give PEG interferon alpha for 24 versus 48 versus even 72 weeks, you do get a better response even if it’s still low single digits. So that’s why longer has been historically better. Of course, that’s balanced by what I think Paul was alluding to earlier when he talked about tolerability, which is the issue is that the longer you give PEG-related interferon alpha, the more side effects accumulate for the patient. So you’re trying to find a balance between those two things, because in the end, it’s really going to come down to efficacy.
And as I was once jokingly told, efficacy is always, along with safety, really where the balance gets, where the rubber hits the road. So I would say that if we can demonstrate a 24 week cure that is similar to the 48 week cure, we will of course go with the 24 weeks because I think that that would allow patients to have a shorter course of interferon therapy. But really if it’s a delta, a meaningful efficacy delta, then we’ll have to decide as we look forward to talking to patients and talking to providers, what exactly would be most desirable in that group. So that’s really the balance between longer is better from an efficacy perspective, and longer being less ideal from a safe, not a safety, but a tolerability perspective. Did that answer your question, Mike?
