John Butler
Analyst · Alethia Young from Cantor Fitzgerald
So on the first question on the panel. I know that, at this point, we are the only HIF PHI that’s in front of the FDA. So while we are preparing for a panel and certainly open to one, the FDA has not given us any indication that we'll have a path. So we have said that we've expected one and we'll be ready for one. But I think the message from FDA has continued to be that, at this time, they don't expect a panel, which always allows them the opportunity to change their mind. So we'll just kind of wait and see as the review progresses. So as I’ve referenced in answer to the last question, on non-dialysis, actually daprodustat data really encourages us around our own path forward. This is, as I mentioned, what we've been saying is when you target a hemoglobin of 10 to 11, which is the target in the US, which we had for US patients in our studies. Recall outside the US we targeted 10 to 12 and patients were generally managed to a higher hemoglobin level. In the US we had a hazard ratio, if you looked at us patients using ages continuous variable, you had a hazard ratio of just over 1, 1.01 and 1.02, I think, with an upper bound at 1.22. So clearly not showing an increased cardiovascular risks that result for daprodustat really was kind of confirmed basically in their overall population where they hit their primary end point. So for us, it really gives us that much more confidence that as FDA looked at this class broadly that, there isn't an elevated cardiovascular risk. And importantly, again, FDA is recognizing -- saw the roxadustat panel. They recognize that there is an unmet need here that patients need treatment options. And that's what goes to this benefit risk, the benefit of treating patients with the vadadustat outweighs the risks, particularly when you go back and look at the things that it really focused on in the roxa panel, which were thromboembolic events, seizures and serious infections where we simply didn't see any difference there. So we'll see. As I said, we are engaged with the FDA. It's ongoing. We're pleased by their level of engagement. But we'll continue to -- we look forward to March 29th, I guess, is what it comes down to. And then with dialysis, yes, as I said, we had been planning to be seconds of three and that was the rationale for the Vifor deal. Now we're planning to be first of two and that rationale doesn't change. And we think it's very important to have Vifor to have access to those Fresenius patients. I don't know, Dell, is there anything you want to add to that? We think that's an important opportunity for us.