Sherry Aulin: Yeah, I was also going to add, there’s a lot we can hopefully leverage on the safety database piece, but a lot of the work that we’re doing in development for epilepsy can also be leveraged for depression. So as we think broader than the clinical studies themselves, the clin-pharm package the nonclinical toxicology studies that we run, a lot of the work that we do on the CMC side with respect to development, registration and validation batches and things of that sort can also be leveraged in the depression program. And so when we look at the totality of the cost, I mean, we’re running a broad MDD program with three studies. The studies are going to be probably larger than the epilepsy studies that we’re running.
And I would say roughly as we think about the amount of capital that we’ve raised, which was $345 million at the end of last year, that’s given us the ability to fully fund the depression program in addition to extending our cash runway by a year. And so generally speaking, it’s faster, and I would say, generally cheaper to run the depression program as we compare that to epilepsy. And in particular, as we think about epilepsy, one of the big costs is the extended open label work that we’re doing. So for example, in X-TOLE, we had an open label that now is entering its fifth year. And we recently said that we’ve extended that to — from five to seven years. So that is a significant cost, which we don’t expect will be the case for depression.
Operator: Due to time constraints, our last question comes from the line of Laura Chico with Wedbush Security. Your line is open.
Laura Chico: Thanks very much for fitting me in. Just two quick ones and following up on that. Apologies if I missed part of it, but could there be a scenario in which you just do two depression studies, I guess, given the large database and leverage of the epilepsy data set, I’m just trying to understand, could there be a scenario where you don’t necessarily need to do three trials? And would that be a discussion point in the end of Phase 2 meeting? And then related to depression, it looks like the timing for the Mount Sinai depression study has been extended based on the clinical trial posting. And I understand this is not a gating item at this point for the trial initiation or FDA discussion. But I guess I’m curious how much relevance does this study actually carry at this point to you? And what’s your working assumption in terms of data readout? Thank you.
Ian Mortimer: Thanks, Laura. Yeah. I don’t — when we think about the two versus three depression studies, I don’t think that’s going to be an FDA question, meaning, as you suggested, if we had two positive studies that, that would meet the requirements for filing. And as you suggested and we’ve highlighted, we’re going to have a huge amount of safety data around the molecule. So when we think about the decision of running two studies versus three studies in depression, it’s really more around risk mitigation and just some of the variability that you see in depression studies rather than specifically that we believe that’s either going to be a regulatory requirement or required for a certain amount of safety data. So I hope that helps to just clarify kind of our thinking around three versus two.
And then on the IST, yeah, we don’t have a lot of control over the IST. Obviously, this is the two centers at Mount Sinai and Baylor. It’s an academic run study. We provide drug supply. And obviously, there is collaboration and coordination between our institutions, but we don’t really have influence in terms of enrollment. As we’ve talked about, not gating to our plans moving forward, and we’re not waiting for those data. And we really are guided by Dr. Murrough and Dr. Matthew in terms of how they’re doing and when potentially the data would be available. So when we have a better idea of when that topline data would be available, then we’re happy to share it with you at that time.
Laura Chico: Thank you.
Operator: Thank you for your participation. This concludes today’s call. You may now disconnect.
