Christy Rossi: Yes. So thanks, Eun. As you know, I mean, we hit – we were highly significant across all of our primary and key secondary endpoints. And so I think part of what the question is just sort of how we interpret the variety of data on these endpoints and how do clinicians interpret them in terms of being meaningful. And as we’ve engaged on this, I would say two things. One, as we’ve said before, the totality of the data across all of these endpoints is really what is most impactful and different health care providers interpret different pieces of data in different ways. What’s interesting about response rate is that it’s actually not an endpoint that is used in allergy frequently. And so as we engage in allergists with allergists, they found ORR to kind of be the least interpretable of all the endpoints, but we’re very eager to share it and certainly some hematologists find it incredibly compelling.
And so we will be looking at both responder analyses, as we’ve indicated across the secondary endpoints. It will be also really interesting to see how those rates evolve over time, again, kind of demonstrating the long-term impact of AYVAKIT. And it’s that totality of the data along with the other secondaries and the primary that we’ve found prescribers have found very compelling, and we’re looking forward to sharing all of that data in a couple of weeks.
Kate Haviland: I think you’re in such unusual position Eun that the study has demonstrated significant impact across multiple ways of looking at it, right? Everything from kind of the most fundamental biological impacts on kind of the pathologic measures of mast cells, as well as the patient impacts on symptomatology all the way through to quality of life. And it’s very rare to have such statistically and clinically meaningful outcomes across such a broad array of measures in the study. And so we’re really looking forward to showing that data.
Eun Yang: Thank you.
Operator: Our next question comes from Derek Archila from Wells Fargo. Please go ahead.
Derek Archila: Hey, good morning. And thanks for taking the questions. Just two quick ones from us. First one, just on the 2023 guidance. I just want to understand, is this more about driving new account activations or is this more about depth at current accounts? And I guess, if it’s the latter, how much depth is really left in terms of new patients at these current practices that you’re already at? And then I just want to make sure I heard you correctly. I think it was Dane’s question. So I think on the 350 providers, I think that you’re initially targeting, so the overlap for ISM patients is about 400 out of the initial 1,500. So is it fair to assume those other 1,000 patients are being seen by allergists? So, thanks.
Kate Haviland: Yes, Derek, thanks so much for the question. I’ll hand it over to Philina to answer the specifics. I think – but to your first part of your question, I mean, I think what we’re so pleased to see in this launch is that we are – we have the dominant share of the current market of patients who are treated with advanced SM and we’re seeing that consistent demand, where we continue to drive new patients, broadening the prescriber base, adding new accounts and new prescribers as we really work to expand the overall size of the SM market as well. And so I think we’re going to continue to see both of those dynamics play out through launch. And then Philina, do you want to talk about the numbers in more depth.
