So, we receive milestones and royalties as that program is successful. This is a drug, a selective inhibitor of NAV1.6 and that we invented and then we licensed to Neurocrine in 2019 after Phase 1. We have the ability to opt in to the Phase 3 program, where we can co-fund the Phase 3 program for an increase in royalties for five percentage points at each tier of the royalty. And so Paul, to answer your question, I think obviously, we’ve got a see the data that they’re generating. It’s a smaller Phase 2 study that they’re running and so we’d like to see what the future development plan looks like, if they’re going to go directly to Phase 3 or if there’s any other work that they’d like to do. But we have the opportunity to have full visibility on all of the clinical data that they’ve generated, including the Phase 3 plans and the budget for Phase 3.
And so we would take all of that information to do a calculus and have that as the inputs into making a decision on whether we’d opt in or not. Chris Kenny, over to you on the OLE data?
Chris Kenney: Yes, sure. Thanks, Ian. I mean I would say that the response has been in keeping with the data that was related in the prepared remarks. In the open-label, we’re seeing pretty substantial reduction in MPC for subjects who are still in the open-label on the order of greater than 80% after a year and really nice seizure freedom data. So, the feedback that we’re getting as we interact with physicians either at investigator meetings or medical conferences, ad boards, steering committees, et cetera, is consistent with that, which is that there’s a fair amount of enthusiasm about how those patients are doing on an individual level and then the numbers that we’re seeing for the overall population are fairly compelling both from a seizure freedom and an MPC perspective. So, yes, there’s no — there’s — it’s going well.
Chris Von Seggern: What I can add from the market research standpoint and the commercial perspective is just as a reminder, this was a very difficult to treat patient population that was enrolled in X-TOLE. And as those patients extend it into the open-label, you have to consider that they’re still very difficult to treat and very different difficult to control. What we hear from our research is that the rates of seizure freedom either as measured at the six-month time point or the 12-month time point are actually quite compelling data in light of the patient population. And this only reinforces the other value attributes that exist with XEN1101, both the potent efficacy, the lack of titration, as well as the rapidity of onset. So, the open-label data from what we’re hearing from a market research standpoint, just reinforced that value proposition, just as Chris had mentioned.
Paul Choi: Great. Thanks for taking our questions.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Joseph Thome from TD Cowen. Please proceed.
Joseph Thome: Hi there. Good afternoon and thank you for taking our question. Maybe the first one, I know historically, you mentioned that potentially we’re seeing some increased use of in the field as the generic landscape changes a little bit. And obviously, we’re continuing to see increased penetration of X-TOLE3. So, can you comment a little bit maybe on how this might change the baseline population of the pivotal program versus what you saw in the Phase 2 and if you’re making any adjustments based on that? And then second, just on the urinary retention AEs in the randomized portion and the open-label, were these really urinary retention side effects and I’m talking to KOL, this seems to be a little bit tricky to characterize sometimes. So, any thoughts around that would be helpful. Thank you.
