Chris Ogden: Yeah. Hi, Malcolm. Just to reiterate what we’ve communicated on cash runway in the prepared remarks, so we reported $194 million of cash at the end of the year. As I mentioned, that does not include the Moderna upfront payment of $35 million received in Q1 of 2023 nor the Astellas milestone that we achieved of $5 million in January of this year. In terms of color on the guidance, we don’t go into specifics on exactly what’s assumed. From an overall capital allocation and resourcing perspective, we communicated in the summer of last year the focus on CX-904 and the next-generation pipeline. So of course, capital will be allocated to those programs as appropriate. But beyond that, we’re not giving any additional color.
Sean McCarthy: Yeah. Just one quick addition there in terms of the deal structures. Like, as we mentioned in the comments earlier, the — both the AbbVie and Amgen alliances have been structured in a way that we — without we had, I guess, now we’re obviously concluding that relationship that we had with Amgen, we have the opportunity to invest in later-stage development. But that’s quite a bit further down the road. So as Chris mentioned, current financials and guidance is really focused on advancing the earlier-stage programs to key near-term assets.
Malcolm Kuno: That makes sense. Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. One moment while we prepare for the next question. Next question is coming from Etzer Darout of BMO. Your line is open.
Etzer Darout: Great. Thanks for taking the question. Just wanted — a clarifying question on the Probody program from BMS. Just sort of whether or not 249 is ongoing and advancing? Is this just sort of a leapfrog of 288 or is that the only program that BMS plans to move forward? I guess that’s question one. And then if you could maybe speak to sort of maybe the safety tolerability differences potentially between 218, the antibody from Bristol and the ipi sort of AE profile, which we now know are fairly, notorious, if you could maybe talk a little bit about that as well. Thank you.
Sean McCarthy: Yeah. Thanks, Etzer. Obviously, questions, I think, we probably more compressively answered by our partner, BMS. But let me just make a couple of brief comments. So first of all, with regard to the 288 leapfrog as you put it, they have been pretty clear that they have prioritized 288 over the other programs, and the advancement from Phase 1 to Phase 2 reflects that. I think if one looks at the broad landscape of CTLA-4 next-gens that are being pursued by various parties, there is a move towards more potent versions of anti-CTLA-4 antibodies using strategies like FC enhancement or in the case of BMS, non-fucosylation, which are functionally very similar. So, their decision, I think looking at it from the standpoint of the outside world and the way the field is evolving, makes sense to us.
With regard to safety of 218, again, I think the question would be much better answered by our partner. I would just observe from the data that we’ve seen in their presentations that 218, as I mentioned earlier, is a more potent antibody when one thinks about engagement of the target, the target biology. It is less well-tolerated. I think the profile though of adverse events that are seen are similar. So, I don’t — I’m not aware of anything that’s particularly unique with the FC enhanced but we’d have to study the data a bit more closely.
Etzer Darout: Got it. Thanks for the update.
Sean McCarthy: Yeah. And the goal of the Probody, of course, is to open that therapeutic window, and that’s why we’re encouraged that they prioritized 288.
Etzer Darout: Got it. Yeah. Thank you.
Sean McCarthy: You’re welcome.
Operator: Thank you. That concludes today’s Q&A session as well as concludes today’s conference call. Thank you all for joining. You may disconnect and have a good evening.
