That number is obviously a little bit biased simply because those with compensated cirrhosis are more likely to present to a clinician. In terms of whether or not we expect the efficacy to be any different, I don’t see any biological reason why we would expect a different result in cirrhotic patients compared to non-cirrhotic patients from a viral efficacy perspective. From a safety perspective, there’s also not any reason to believe that they would be a significant safety signal. I do want to point out that we did do a hepatic impairment study in decompensated Child-Pugh-Turcotte B patients or CPT-B patients, and there was no evidence to date of a clinically significant change in PK or safety in that small study. So I think that there’s, again, no reason to believe there’s a concern, but that’s why we do the clinical trials.
And that’s why we’re looking forward to seeing what that data looks like in Q2.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Michaels Ulz with Morgan Stanley.
Michaels Ulz: Maybe just a follow-up for Sung, thanks for giving clarity on how to think about OpEx spend this year, but maybe if I could push you a little bit as we think about moving beyond 2024. Maybe give us a sense of how to think about it trend wise? Should we be thinking more flattish spend or should we thinking sort of an upward trend? I know a lot will depend on kind of what happens with some of these readouts here, but any comments there would be helpful.
Sung Lee: So kind of going back to what I said before, the bulk of the capital allocation, if we continue to demonstrate successful data with hepatitis delta and hepatitis B programs as we have of the last 18 months, that would garner the lion share of capital allocation. So moving beyond 2024, we would expect hepatitis delta and hepatitis B studies to continue to ramp up. They’re still in Phase 2. As we get into Phase 3, both of these studies would peak but that peak would not be reached in 2025. The peak would most likely be reached somewhere in the second half of 2026 to 2027 timeframe as things progress. But again, we have to really take this one year at a time, because it’s dependent on data. I might just add though when you look at the guidance for 2024, and we put a lot of information out there to help you think about not only GAAP operating expenses, excluding cost of sales but also how to think about cash utilization from our guidance range, because we’ve provided you with important non-cash items.
So both on an OpEx basis and cash utilization basis, we would be significantly lower than 2023, which we would consider a peak year driven by the flu study and related manufacturing. And I’ll just round out my statement by saying, on a operating expense basis when you exclude the noncash significant items, we would expect to be down 18% year-over-year, which is significant and again, from all the cost optimization efforts undertaken last year and coming off the peak of the flu investment last year as well.
Operator: There are no further questions at this time. I will now turn the call over to Marianne De Backer for closing remarks.
Marianne De Backer: Okay. Thank you, operator. So to close, we are eagerly anticipating our multiple data catalysts that’s really in our mind holds a great promise for patient impact and for value creation. And we are well on our way as we said to powering the immune system to transform lives. Thank you all for joining us today. And operator, you may end the call. Thank you.
Operator: This concludes today’s call. You may now disconnect.
