Pamela Vig
Analyst · Evercore ISI. Please go ahead
Yes. Thanks for the question. I will start off and then with regard to adoption, I will hand over to Peter for that. So yes, we are just really excited about this analyses. It's been a labor of, you can imagine, six years of involvement from these patients and physician community to get to this database and a lot of effort by the GALA Natural History Study Group. And this means if we compared with LIVMARLI to a natural history GLAL cohort. And the way that we ensure that there was similarity between baseline characteristics was through a pre-specified, very rigorous selection process in which outcomes were blinded and actually all of the robust methodologies, including sensitivity and subgroups were included to try to ensure robustness, statistical robustness of the clinical efficacy. So the cohort selection, once the cohort was selected and this is based on using key entry criteria from the maralixibat studies, to try to get a representative and appropriate control cohort, there is an assessment of comparability across the two groups. And this showed that there were similar disease severity between the two groups. This is looking at alkaline phosphatase. So ALT, ALP, AST, GGT, bilirubin, et cetera. And we found that both of these were well aligned. There were sensitivities on potential variables. So this is where we looked at adjustments at baseline and this included everything from ALT, bilirubin, AHT, GGT, sex, year of birth,, et cetera, all of these were analyzed using different adjustment analyses. I think it's important to note that we found that there were no statistical differences between the two groups at baseline with the exception of serum bile acid, where it was higher in the maralixibat treatment group. And I think also important to note that SBA is not commonly collected in the real world. So that includes a subset of these data. But we ran subgroup analyses on that as well as several other components using different index times. When do you start the clock for the GALA cohort looking at transplant-free survival and also pruning analyses to adjust for intermodal time bias. So taking all of this together, the pre-specified analyses that I just mentioned is with all of these sensitivities and subgroup analyses, really demonstrate the robustness of the data with highly statistically significant improvements in event-free and transplant-free survival between the two cohorts. And maybe I will hand it to Peter. Did you have another question for me?