Chris Kenney: I think you covered it. There was a little bit of separation with the ezogabine MDD early on, but it was certainly more pronounced later on. So, it remains to be seen whether what we’re seeing in epilepsy will translate into depression. We’re certainly looking at that information at weeks one and two.
Andrew Tsai: Very good. And so a second follow-up would be — it’s more of an open-ended question and only to the extent you can — you’re willing to share is in terms of the operational execution of the ongoing study. Again, to the extent you can share, can you kind of discuss what goes into ensuring for instance, the quality of the sites, the quality of patients and so forth. For instance, are you using safer intervs ? Are you seeing high screen failure rates or maybe even a balanced distribution of patients across your sites? Thanks.
Ian Mortimer: Chris, do you want to go through kind of CRO and sites and safer and all the things that were — we’ve added to the study?
Chris Kenney: I just want to be clear, the question pertaining to MDD, not to epilepsy, correct? I just want to be sure.
Andrew Tsai: Correct, for MDD, yes.
Chris Kenney: Yes. So, I mean the key steps to try to maintain the quality to the best extent that we can in that trial is several fold. You mentioned one, we’re using the safer evaluation, so that there’s an external group ensuring that we’re enrolling appropriate patients. We have sites that are solely based in the US and in general, the quality of that data tends to be more reliable. Trying to keep the number of sites limited so that there isn’t a huge number that it contributes to the variability of the data and then we’re keeping an eye on the data and the sites in real-time to ensure that there isn’t anything unexpected ongoing at those sites. To your point about performance, I mean, as with all clinical studies, I think there are some sites that are lagging in recruitment and others that are excelling. It’s sort of a typical kind of distribution that I think one would expect. Do you want to add anything to that, Ian?
Ian Mortimer: The only other thing, Andrew, you ask is just about screen failure rate. We see a screen failure rate that’s higher, obviously, in the depression studies than we see in the epilepsy studies.
Andrew Tsai: Very helpful. Thank you, guys.
Chris Kenney: Yes. And very much in keeping with what we expected and hoped for, right, that we wouldn’t — we don’t want to have a screen failure rate that’s too low.
Ian Mortimer: Yes, thanks Chris.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Marc Goodman from SVB Securities. Please proceed.
Rudy Li: Thanks for taking my question. It’s Rudy on the line for Marc. So, I would have a question about the market dynamics for focal onset seizures. So, specifically, can you provide more color or your thoughts on the uptake of both XCOPRI and what feedback you’ve been hearing recently regarding the drug profile versus 1101? Thanks.
Ian Mortimer: Thanks Rudy. Over to you, Chris Von Seggern.
Chris Von Seggern: Yes, absolutely. So, from a market dynamic, XCOPRI is obviously the most recent to launch into this space. And they’ve done quite well. I would say from an observation standpoint, they’re seeing continued uptake in the marketplace and growth that is expected with a profile that is offering some level of efficacy in the marketplace. What we hear from our research is that there is a place for XCOPRI. And for the profile, it tends to be a latter line agent in current clinical practice. And this is based on the fact that it does have a quite difficult and lengthy titration period. And as a result, that does limit some earlier adoption and particularly where we’ve heard the primary positioning for XEN1101 being in the mix for that first-branded agent that’s pulled for.
