Chris Kenney: I mean, I’ll start off and then I’ll hand it off to Chris. If you take a look at the patients who meet the criteria for having moderate to severe depression, which is the case in the X-NOVA study then it’s very difficult to find a complete lack of anhedonia. In fact, that’s a key feature of getting the diagnosis of MDD. So they tend to lock together pretty closely. And as Ian just said, I mean, there’s been this Increasing interest in anhedonia. I think your observation is more driven, I think, by people not just not focusing on it on the past, and now it’s become clear that it’s something worthy of treatment.
Chris Von Seggern: The only thing I can add there is that when we go out and do market research, there’s very clear consistency with primary efficacy endpoints around MADRS in this space. And one can only assume that’s in order to avoid deviating from a regulatory perspective on what gets ultimate FDA approval. But we have seen, to Ian and Chris’ point, increased interest in anhedonia as a component of the efficacy profile for these products given the fact that it’s a comorbidity associated with depression, and we’re eager to see how this unfolds in the coming years.
Operator: And our last question will come from Tim Lugo from William Blair.
Tim Lugo: For X-TOLE2 and 3, I know they’re designed very similarly to X-TOLE. However, I think, one of the defining features of X-TOLE was how many therapies those patients have failed. And now 1101 is an unknown asset as Xenon is a very well known company within the community. Can you just talk maybe how the base line profiles of X-TOLE2 and 3 are lining up versus X-TOLE and maybe how that could swing what will eventually be the results coming from the study?
Ian Mortimer: I think that’s a really interesting question that we’re absolutely monitoring. I don’t think we have a lot to fan in today, but something that we’ll be tracking. So I’ll get my perspective and then Chris Kenney provide yours as well. So this is a good opportunity maybe just to take a step back and confirm some of the comments that you’ve made, which are on point, which is X-TOLE2 and X-TOLE3 are designed after X-TOLE, obviously, the naming convention there was very deliberate. So it is the same inclusion exclusion criteria for X-TOLE2 and 3 as compared to X-TOLE. But as you suggest during X-TOLE, 1101 was an unknown molecule at that time and also we know that X-TOLE was run — at least part of X-TOLE was run during the pandemic, and we got a quite severe patient population.
And when we look at the literature, we can’t find another study where it was as severe a population as we trialed in an X-TOLE. And we look at three different measures, we look at the number of drugs that patients had failed prior to study the number of background therapies they were on coming into study, as well as the baseline seizure burden. And so there is a hypothesis that maybe an X-TOLE2 and 3 will get a less severe patient population. Yes, we’ll look at that, Tim. We’re not at a point right now to be able to comment on that. It’s always difficult when you’re running a study because those baseline characteristics are changing every day as you’re enrolling more patients. But as we get closer to completing these studies, I think that would be something that would be relevant for us to comment on.
Chris, anything to add to that?
Chris Kenney: Well, I just want to sort of emphasize the importance of keeping an eye on the baseline characteristics of these studies as we go forward. So that’s something that we always do because we want to make sure that the population is somewhat in keeping with what we’re expecting. And if not, then we want to be able to pivot and not wait till the end of the study to realize that. So that’s something that we follow very closely. I think it’s hard to imagine a scenario where we’re going to end up with patients who are more impaired. And so I think it’s more likely to Ian’s point that we end up with patients who are less impaired. And as we tease out the data from X-TOLE, it suggests that those patients actually respond better. So we would have to confirm that in Phase 3, of course. So I think that’s all I’ll say. It remains to be seen exactly how the populations compare.
Operator: Thank you. With that, this concludes today’s conference call. Thank you for joining. You may now disconnect.
