So that could be a very important differentiator across the board. So we selected psoriasis in atopic derm because those are populations where there’s a large number of patients, and we felt we could enroll them well. And you can look at the clinical response easily with well-understood endpoints and even get biopsy samples, if you want because it’s in the skin. The tissue is easily accessible. So that was the rationale. I think in particular for psoriasis, that was really mostly the entire rationale. For atopic dermatitis, we were really, really excited by the initial data we had seen out of one of our competitor programs in atopic derm showing strong efficacy in an albeit small population in their Phase Ib, but durability beyond the end of treatment that was perhaps surprising a bit, but maybe even consistent with the mechanism of enhancing Treg function and perhaps tolerance.
So we wanted to chase that down because that could be an exciting area to differentiate in atopic derm. That’s sort of long durability post treatment that we know current agents in AD or every other week or might be getting to monthly soon. Now I’ll let Nancy. Can you restate your question on Vuda Boris because that was pretty long winded there, sorry?
Boris Peaker: Yeah. No, I was just asking in terms of safety. In lung cancer, how do you anticipate it to compare to, obviously, competitor bispecifics as well as just the KEYTRUDA plus chemo combo?
Nancy Valente: Yeah, that’s a bit hard to answer without any data in line of the combination. And that’s why we’re doing — that’s a part 1 and a part 2. So the part 1 allows us to look at two different doses of vudalimab in combination with the standard chemotherapy of pentrexina carbo. And then we’ll see what happens. Like what does that safety look like when you add a bispecific to that chemo versus just a monoclonal PD-1 antibody? And just to clarify, to prior question, it is four cycles of vuda, I’m sorry, we call Vuda vudalimab plus carbo and pemtrexate and then maintenance with vudalimab and pemtrexate. It’s not a limited dosing as mentioned by somebody else. So it’s full cycles.
Boris Peaker: Great. Thanks for taking my question.
Operator: Thank you. One moment for our next question please. Our next question comes from Greg Renza of RBC Capital Markets. Your line is open.
Anish Nikhanj: Yeah. Hi, guys. It’s Anish on for Greg. Congrats on the quarter. I just wanted to ask a couple on sort of your views on positioning of two of your pipeline assets here. So just kind of wanted to see with plamotamab with multiple CD20, CD3 bispecifics approved. How do you believe plamotamab’s combination will position among competitors. And then just on 564, just kind of building on a previous question, not necessarily in terms of differentiation with approved drugs right now. But in terms of lines of care, for example, would you guys see 564 being slotted in for patients with poorly controlled atopic derm or psoriasis that might be being treated with drugs like Sotyktu, Otezla, SKYRIZI, et cetera. Thanks so much for the questions. And congrats again.
Bassil Dahiyat: Yeah. With plamo positioning, we think the crux of this is the same logic that attracted Janssen as a partner for plamo and they are the ones leading the program now taking on the great majority of its cost, 80% of the cost. I think that the key there is the combination with our CD28 could provide that differentiation. And I will say that our competitors in combining with their CD28 bispecifics are really just at the very earliest stages and with plamo, I think, showed competitive efficacy safety profile, IV. We’re moving rapidly on the subcu. The positioning is really in combo to try to leapfrog with better efficacy, the just initially established monotherapy and probably soon to be established hemocombos with the other CD20 CD3s.
And so that’s why we were excited to get a partner like Janssen, which has outstanding capabilities and scale in heme malignancy to help drive this strategy because that’s a strategy that is tough to do alone as a small company. So I think hopefully, that addresses the positioning for Plamo. For 564, I just want to emphasize that we haven’t — we don’t have a final indication study. This is Phase 1b where we want to demonstrate durability of action of Treg enhancement and hopefully tie that to efficacy where it’s easily seen. Certainly, depending on what we see atopic derm could be a go forward. But we are obviously — we are considering other indications and would expect to announce if we propose to advance in any, and there’s a wide range of autoimmune indications where Treg is very likely play a role.
We would expect to announce those later as we’ve nailed down our regimen. So this is not a commitment in Phase 1 to an indication strategy. I will say that this idea of sequencing in AD is going to come up more and more, not just for Treg enhancers, but all of the therapies. And that’s certainly been a place where new additions have had a huge impact in other autoimmune indications, and that we do expect that to happen more and more in skin like it has, say, for example, in arthritis.
Anish Nikhanj: Great. Thanks so much. Really appreciate the color there.