Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to REGENXBIO’s Second Quarter 2018 Earnings Conference Call. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later we will conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will be provided at that time. [Operator Instructions] I’d now like to turn the conference over to Patrick Christmas, Senior Vice President and General Counsel. Please go ahead.

Good morning and thank you for joining us today. With me this morning are Ken Mills, REGENXBIO's President and Chief Executive Officer; Stephen Yoo, our Chief Medical Officer; and Vit Vasista, our Chief Financial Officer. Earlier this morning, REGENXBIO released financial and operating results for the three months ended June 30, 2018. The press release reporting our financial results is available on our website at www.regenxbio.com. Today's conference call will include forward-looking statements regarding our financial outlook in addition to regulatory and product development plans. These forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ from those forecasted and can be identified by words such as expect, plan, will, may, anticipate, believe, should, intend and other words of similar meaning. Any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks and uncertainties. These risks are described in the Risk Factors and the Management's Discussion and Analysis section of REGENXBIO's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2018, which is on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission and available on the SEC's website. Any information we provide on this conference call is provided only as of the date of this call, August 8, 2018, and we undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statements we may make on this call on account of new information, future events or otherwise. Please be advised that today's call is being recorded and webcast. In addition, any unaudited or pro forma financial information that may be provided is preliminary and does not purport to project financial positions or operating results of the company. Actual results may differ materially. I would now like to turn the call over to Ken Mills, President and Chief Executive Officer of REGENXBIO.

Thank you, Patrick, and good afternoon everyone. Thanks for joining us. Our agenda for today’s conference call, we’ll provide a recap of our recent progress including a presentation of the interim trial results released this morning from the RGX-314 and RGX-501 clinical trial. Vit will provide an update on financial results for the second quarter of 2018. We will also review anticipated upcoming milestones for REGENXBIO and then open the call to questions. At REGENXBIO our mission is clear, we aim to improve lives through the curative potential of gene therapy based on our proprietary NAV Technology platform. Our NAV Technology platform consists of over 100 adeno-associated virus vectors or AAV vectors including AAV7, AAV8, AVV9 and AAV rh10. Our gene therapy product candidates are designed to be single-administration therapies that deliver genes to cells to address genetic defects or that enable cells in the bodies produce therapeutic proteins that are intended to impact disease. Our product candidates are designed to provide long lasting effects for patients with significant unmet medical needs, potentially changing the course of a disease and delivering improved patient outcomes. We are currently advancing an internal pipeline to address retinal diseases, metabolic disease and neuro-degenerative diseases. These areas of focus have been strategically selected because we believe they can be uniquely addressed by our vectors and within each focus area there are many diseases with significant unmet medical need. Beyond our internal development programs, we selectively license components of our NAV Technology platform; mostly typically single vectors for single indications to third party companies whose vision and commitment to gene therapy is align with ours. I want to take a moment to emphasize that for us this work is about more than our technology platform. While our company in the field of AAV gene therapy has…

Thanks Ken. I would like to begin today with our RGX-314 program for the treatment of wet AMD, with a focus on the data we released this morning. As a quick reminder, wet AMD is a disease affecting more than 2 million patients in the US, Europe and Japan and usually requires continual anti-VEGF therapy to prevent vision loss. Continual therapy is a burden to the patients and families affected. Many patients struggle to comply with the recommended therapeutic regimen for current anti-VEGF therapies and lack of compliance can lead to reduced therapeutic affect and ultimately vision loss. RGX-314 utilizes the NAV AAV8 vector which includes a gene that encodes for a therapeutic anti-VEGF protein which is designed to be continually made by retinal cells [Astra] injection. The expressed anti-VEGF antibody fab is designed to neutralize VEGF activity in a continuous fashion after a single administration. Continuous inhibition of VEGF activity will be something new to the treatment of wet AMD. The NAV AVV8 vector has been selected for this product candidate because it has demonstrated affective transaction of retinal cells in multiple pre-clinical animal models and the ability to produce high levels of therapeutic protein. On the next slide, we see a depiction of the current RGX-314 clinical trial. This is a phase 1 multi-center, open-label, multiple cohorts, dose escalation study in adults with wet AMD in United States. The study to date has included 18 previously treated wet AMD subjects who have had at least four anti-VEGF injections in the previous eight months. We observed the majority of enrolled subjects in the study have demonstrated a high need for regular and frequent anti-VEGF therapy. Most of the subjects are treated with many years of previous therapy with over 35 injections on average prior to entry. In addition, the…

Thanks a lot Steven. And as we described in the next slide, positive signals from clinical measures at six months indicate that cohort 3 dose maybe clinically meaningful and we expect to use this dosage in a phase 2 trial for wet AMD. We plan to engage with regulatory authorities to support a phase 2 clinical file design before the end of 2018 and hope to bring this novel therapy to patients as quickly as possible. Now based on RGX-314 being well tolerated and the dose dependent effects observed on protein expression, reductions in anti-VEGF injections and improvements in visual acuity, we plan to evaluate the potential benefits of an additional dose 1.6 x 10^11 genome copies per eye in a new fourth cohort of the existing phase 1 trial. Now in terms of some of the immediate next steps, as we’re showing here on slide 19 an amendment to add the fourth cohort has already been approved by the FDA and several site institutions or review boards. I’m happy to share that the first subject in this new cohort was dose this week. I’ll now turn it back to Steven to provide an update on our RGX-501 program.

Thanks Ken. I’ll now turn to slide 20 to discuss our metabolic franchise and the results shared today from our RGX-501 program for the treatment of HoFH, a rare genetic disorder caused by mutations in the gene including the low-density lipoprotein or LDL receptor. Current standard of care therapies for HoFH are often insufficient to lower LDL cholesterol to normal levels. RGX-501 has the potential to address the underlying genetic defect responsible for HoFH by correcting the LDL receptor deficiency with a one-time therapeutic administration. RGX-501 uses the NAV AAV8 vector. We announced today an update from the phase I/II trial of RGX-501 for the treatment of HoFH being conducted at the University of Pennsylvania and fund by REGENXBIO. As you can see here on slide 21, in the trial a total of six subjects of HoFH received a single administration of RGX-501 across two dose cohorts. Three participants in each cohorts at doses of 2.5 x 10^12 and 7.5 x10^12 genome copies per kilogram of bodyweight respectively. The interim update announced today include safety and efficacy assessment at the July 27, 2018 for the two dose cohort and subject from each cohort have been followed for an average of 63 weeks for cohort one and 23 weeks for cohort two. Moving to slide 22; as of July 27, 2018, there have been four SAEs reported during the 52-week active study period. Two of which were reported as drug-related. As previously reported in January 2018, one subject in cohort 1 experienced a mild transitory activation of the immune system accompanied by hypotension and elevated transaminases. This was approximately $22 post dosing and resolved within a day. A second subject in cohort 2 experienced asymptomatic elevation in transaminases with a peak ALT of 1469 international units per liter. This patients was…

Thanks Steven. So we have a lot going on in REGENXBIO, and we’re certainly very encouraged by these updates and the progress we continue to make as we develop our lead product candidates. But in parallel with these advancements, we’ve continued to strengthen our team and capabilities in a number of important ways. I’m pleased to announce this morning that we strengthened our management team with the appointment of Ram Palanki, as Senior Vice President of Commercial Strategy and Operations. Ram brings more than 15 years of experience in ophthalmology and commercial leadership roles. Prior to joining REGENXBIO, he was Senior Vice President of Commercial for all of Americas at Santen Inc. Previously he was Global Head of Marketing and Sales at Thrombogenics. He began his career in a variety of new product commercialization and commercial marketing roles with companies including Genentech and Novartis. We’ve also made great progress in our buildout of our new state-of-the-art research and development facility in Rockville, Maryland. The site is nearing completion and is expected to be fully operational later this year. We’re looking forward to having a consolidated facility for a steadily growing research and early development group together with our process development and manufacturing teams. Moving on to slide 24, beyond our internal programs the NAV technology platform continues to advance through the efforts of our licensed external partners. Our technology is currently being employed in the development of more than 20 partnered product candidates by our NAV technology licensees, 12 of which have advanced to clinical stage. As licensee programs progress achieving efficacy and safety milestones, we believe that they further validate the versatility of the NAV technology platform and provide additional data that collectively drive the advancement of the AAV gene therapy space. The strength of our platform was highlighted…

Gracias el jefe. Moving to slide 25, REGENXBIO ended the quarter on June 30, 2018 with cash, cash equivalent and marketable securities totaling $306.3 million as compared to $176.4 million as of December 31, 2017, an increase of $129.9 million. Cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities as of June 30, 2018 includes a $180 million received in 2018 in connection with an amendment to our license agreement with AveXis for the development and commercialization of treatments for SMA. Revenues were $40 million for the three months ended June 30, 2018, compared to $6.6 million for the same period in 2017. The increase was primarily attributable to an accelerated sales based milestone of $40 million which was recognized as revenue during the three months ended June 30, 2018. Due to the condition of non-recurring license revenue during the three and six months ended June 30, 2018, we generally expect license revenue for the remainder of 2018 to be substantially lower than the first half of 2018. Research and development expenses were $21.5 million for the three months ended June 30, 2018, compared to $13.9 million for the same period in 2017. The increase was primarily attributable to increased headcount, laboratory and facilities costs and expenses associated with conducting clinical trials in externally sourced manufacturing related services. General and administrative expenses were $8.3 million for the three months ended June 30, 2018, compared to $6.4 million during the same period in 2017. The increase was primarily attributable to increased headcount and professional fees for advisory services. Net income was $10.6 million or $0.33 per basic and $0.30 per diluted common share for the three months ended June 30, 2018, compared to a net loss of $14.5 million or $0.47 per basic and diluted common shares for the same period in 2017. Net income in the second quarter was primarily driven by the non-recurring licensed revenue recognized from its amended licensed agreement with AveXis. As of June 30, 2018, we had $32.3 million common shares outstanding. Based on its current operating plan, REGENXBIO now expects that its balance and cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities will be between $250 million and $260 million as of December 31, 2018, which will be to support the continued development of its lead product candidate programs. Earlier this year, we announced that we expected full year 2018 cash burn to be between $85 million and $95 million. We have changed our guidance to the end of year cash balance, cash equivalents and marketable securities in an effort to provide more transparency to the investor community and remove any potential confusion created by those excess transactions. The revised guidance reflects an increase in expected 2018 cash burn to be between 90 million and 100 million. Net of payments received under our amended license with AveXis in any related sub-licensed fees we incurred to our licensors on those proceeds. With that I’ll turn the call back to El President to provide final thoughts and review our upcoming 2018 milestones.

Thanks for that wonderful update Vit. 2018 is shaping up to be a momentous year for AAV gene therapy sector as a whole, and we’re enthusiastic about the continued clinical advancement over internal product candidates, our partnered pipeline and the further validation of the NAV technology platform. So to summarize what we’ve presented today, in the phase 1 clinical trial RGX-314 was well tolerated at all doses. We observed dose dependent increases in protein expression; we also reported dose dependent reduction and the need for rescue anti-VEGF injections following administration of RGX-314 with maintenance of retinal thickness and visual acuity. We’ve expanded our current phase 1 trial to include a cohort 4 at a higher dose for which the first subject has already been dosed this week. In the phase I/II trial for RGX-501, subjects experience transcarbamylase elevation in cohort 2, a phenomenon not observed in cohort 1. Administration of steroids appears to mitigate these elevations and related effects. The expected next steps will be to amend the phase I/II trial protocol to enroll additional subjects using steroid prophylaxis. We look forward to sharing updates on additional data from the RGX-314 phase 1 clinical trial for wet AMD in October, as well as updating you on the RGX-501 phase I/II clinical trial for HoFH in the fourth quarter of 2018. We’re also very much looking forward to dosing subjects in the RGX-111 and RGX-121 clinical trials for MPS-1 and MPS-II in the fourth quarter of this year. At REGENXBIO, our mission is to improve lives through the curative potential of gene therapy based on our proprietary NAV technology platform. With our innovative science inspire our employees and partners and strong cash position, we feel we are well positioned to achieve future milestones as we advance therapies for patients with significant unmet medical needs. With that we covered a lot of positive and important updates this morning and I’d like to open the call for potential questions. Operator?

[Operator Instructions] our first question comes from Gbola Amusa with Chardan. Your line is now open.

I have a few questions there, first of all with cohort 4 as the plan to report to the market results from there once all patients have achieved six months of data and will that be the time when you inform the market as well as to how you’ll change or go forward with your phase 2. And then secondly, I know that our protein expression in cohort 3 in your phase 1 was about 67 times out of cohort 1 when the dosing was about 20 times higher. Is that within the noise expected in the trial or given the confidence [interval] shown does it imply that there is some other phenomena such as evolution of the surgical approach that might have driven the difference?

In terms of reporting plans that we have going forward as Stephen mentioned, the next opportunity for updating on results from the clinical trial is going to be at AAO in October, and then in addition I think we will plan to have an update for everyone, concomitant with our corporate update at the begin of 2019 on how our plans and development of RGX-314 are going forward. Other than that right now, I don’t think we have anything else clearly planned. But as we continue to accrue data throughout the entirety of the study and including cohort 4, we’ll be planning to provide those updates. With respect to our plans for moving forward with the phase 2, we feel that we have the support with the data that we’ve observed in cohort 3 to begin that planning and process immediately and that’s what our intention is with respect to the engagement of regulators between now and the end of 2018, is to begin the design of the phase 2 program for 2019. I think that’s a great question about protein expression, obviously what we demonstrated today is that we saw dose dependency across the cohorts. As you can see from the press release and Stephen’s over view, we just locked this data within the last 12 days and so we’re still evaluating and developing and understanding of what we’re seeing. But we feel certainly that there is a lot of positive takeaways from the protein expression that we’re seeing in cohort 3, and we’re going to continue to evaluate that.

I just want to press my luck and ask one more question just on manufacturing. For this trial you’re requiring orders of magnitude less vector per patient than in other gene therapy trials and indications, but wet AMD is in market that has orders of magnitude and more patients to dose for an overall market. So what’s the balance of those two factors in assessing how much manufacturing and capacity you need going forward?

We have developed a process internally that we think will meet the needs of the continuing clinical development. We already have both drug successfully produced for our intents and purposes around clinical development of RGX-314. And in addition, we expect that the current manufacturing process is capable of meeting the future and anticipated potential and commercial demand. So, you’re right, and I think everyone’s understanding is that we’re certainly applying smaller amounts virus to individual patients than we may be in some of the programs like the liver-directed programs. But we feel that because the company has a broad and diverse pipeline portfolio we put a lot of thinking in to CMC planning and particularly with RGX-314 we think that we have what we need.

Our next question comes from Gena Wang with Barclays. Your line is now open.

My first one is regarding the protein level, just wondering have you checked the protein level beyond one month and has the protein level maintained throughout six months?

Gena this is Ken. I’ll start there. So as you can tell from what is said to Gbola, some of the data that we’re reporting here is very new, given that July 27 data lock date? So for instance in cohort 3, some of those patients have only recently made their six months visit and that would be another point in time where typically in the protocol, we would be drawing it via samples to be able to evaluate protein levels. And so we don’t currently have those for the cohort 3 patients as of today. In the patients in the earlier cohorts, what we are seeing is that the more patients require administration of anti-VEGF agents in the trial, which is a higher propensity of patients in cohort 1 for instance that that does have an interference with our ability to interpret the RGX-314 protein expression at later time points, and that’s why we’re selling to everyone today what we think is the absolute cleanest comparative measure of protein expression levels across all three cohorts. So what we’re looking forward to doing on a go-forward basis is establishing some more of our understanding of protein levels at later time points, particularly in patients who haven’t been receiving any anti-VEGF injections since the administration of RGX-314. And I think we can expect to provide information like that at the future update points that I alluded with Gbola later this year and at the beginning of next year.

And then my follow-up question is regarding cohort 3. Your total reduction of injection is 53% and three patients were free of any injection. Can you share with us the other three patients, how many reduction they received?

So that’s non-information that we’re sharing today Gena, but we expect that at the AAO conference the investigators are going to be thinking about the opportunity of showing more individual patient data. The exercise that we’re able to go through in the last week and a half or so allowed us we think to sort of provide a high level of quality data based on the averages of what we were seeing across the cohorts.

And my last question is regarding the cohort 4. I think the previous question was also asked a little bit about the protein level. Now things are completely linear, and I think based on the first three cohorts it simply will fall in to [800] level gram per micro (inaudible) for the 1.6 E11 dose and what is your goal of anti-VEGF level? And also do you think that that will be enough or just wondering if you should explore additional dose since the enrollment won’t be an issue and you could save a lot of time waiting for the data, if it’s not optimal?

So that’s a great and very important question. And again I think with the dose 3 what we are seeing is very encouraging. We are seeing protein levels that correlate to clinically meaningful measures with respect to reduction in anti-VEGF injections as well as maintenance of retinal thickness and even improvement in visual acuity measures in many of the patients. So we feel Gena strongly that we have a dose that we wanted to take in to our phase 2 study to expand our understanding of it in a larger population. In addition with cohort 4, what we believe is that we have an opportunity to expand on the value of RGX-314 program by looking at an additional dose. We’re obviously beginning to see the picture of the pharmacology here of RGX-314 and I think our target is in a specific protein expression level. Our target is to continue to provide a safe and well tolerated profile that continues to show really good and clinically meaningful outcomes for patients. And we think that a cohort 4 dose could allow for a broader understanding of that in a wet-AMD population and also allow us to start to think about how RGX-314 is an anti-VEGF agent, could apply in general to a number of populations with respect to VEGF inhibition.

Our next question comes from Matthew Harrison with Morgan Stanley. Your line is now open.

I just wanted to ask about I guess two PK related question. So one, can you just talk about what you believe are the appropriate dose levels for VEGF PK and sort of what you think the median PK is that you get from VEGF and how that compares to the protein expression that you’re seeing with cohort 3. And then given whatever you expect with cohort 4 in terms of the dose where you think that will compare? And I have a follow-up.

Matthew, this is Ken. I think that what’s been interesting about the development of RGX-314 is that we’ve really been exploring a novel PK profile compared to what the existing anti-VEGF treatments have presented for physicians as well as patients. So we’re moving to something that is focused on the sustained suppression of VEGF. And I don’t think that it’s been an easy thing to do to sort of understand and establish on apples-to-apples basis how to think about things like peaks and troughs and midpoints of the PK profiles of existing anti-VEGF treatments will compare to sustained suppression of VEGF. So I think again what we are encouraged about today is we’re presenting what we think is a very robust and encouraging picture about what sustains suppression of VEGF with an anti-VEGF treatment and telling us about clinical measures including reduction and the need for additional injections, but also maintenance of retinal thickness and visual acuity. And so I think at this point again, as I said to Gina, the target here we have is, number one; we are encouraged that we are seeing protein expression in all patients. Number two that we’re exploring the pharmacology and seeing dose dependency across doses, and we expect and hope to continue to see that. But importantly we’re now focused on the clinical measures and we’re seeing clinically meaningful improvement in patients. We think this is what is going to define sort of the application utility of a treatment like RGX-314, where the paradigm is about continuous suppression of VEGF.

And then a follow-up, on safety could you just walk us through in a flip-note for the three patients with the SAEs, I think you said one died from pre-existent conditions and the other had a retinal detachment I believe. Can you just walk through the specifics surrounding those cases?

Yes, I’m going to hand that over to Stephen.

Sure. For the subject who had the three SAEs, all of those SAEs were unrelated to RGX-314 or to the procedure. And that subject had a pre-existing condition of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and had an exacerbation and the death was related to basically the pre-existing COPD. In terms of the retinal detachment, retinal detachment is a known complication of vitrectomy which is a part of the surgical procedure that we use for RGF-314, repair of retinal detachments from – vitrectomy is also commonly done in clinical practice, and in this particular case that particular detachment was repaired immediately and without any significant [secuela]. That patient’s recovered their vision and is doing well after repair of the detachment.

Our next question comes from Ying Huang with Bank of America. Your line is now open.

This is [Chen] on behalf of Ying. So I have a couple of questions if I may. So first of all, I just wanted to know about the baseline of wet AMD trial in terms of the OCT and BCVA. I guess the reason why I asked it is because you had a screening period where you used anti-VEGF, just wanted to see that whether you were right before you inject the vector? And also wanted to see the severity of the diseases when you put the contact comparing these parameters to the other anti-VEGF as tryout? And particularly obviously on cohort 3, if you look at the 2.8 medium injection frequency is kind of lower than the other cohort. Second question is also related with the VEGF expression and you mentioned previously that the [rescue] injection may impact your measurement. I’m just wondering whether you can comment on the time of the injection of rescue in the cohort relating the one month that you just mentioned in the press release. And the third question is on the HoFH trial, I know you saw some immunogenicity. Just wondering whether you can comment on whether that was related to the LDR receptor or it’s related with a vector. And given that LDL receptor is expressed on the surface, I’m wondering whether that could be the reason contributing to higher immunogenicity that you’re seeing?

I am going to take it in reverse order and hand part of it off to Stephen. In the HoFH trial, I think that this is still some new observations that we’re sharing with the investigator. I expect that Marina will have an opportunity to discuss a little bit more, what we’re seeing in the individual patience in cohort 2 with respect to this Transaminase elevation. So I’m going to leave that to her. With respect to your question about the timing of injection around particularly the one month data that we showed on RGX-314 protein level, so absolutely in the case of one month we did protein measures in all of the patients before they would have received an injection, an additional anti-VEGF injection under the protocol. So that’s again why we feel like right now this is the absolute cleanest comparative data that we have across the cohorts for RGX-314 protein expression levels. And on the first, I’ll let Stephen address a little bit about how the patients in the RGX-314 trial were included in baseline.

Thanks Ken. Gina, great question on the patient population, and I think that’s an important point to understand about the clinical trial. So this particular trial sought to enroll patients who basically had a high need for frequent and regular anti-VEGF injections and so we have the entry criteria of requiring at least four injections in the previous eight months which all subjects met. And as I shared earlier, when we looked at the mean number of prior injections subjects had received before entering in to the study, it was over 35 injections on average for the subject. And so what we take away from that is that these were really subjects who had been treated for the wet AMD with anti-VEGF injections for a long periods of time and had long standing disease. And I think you alluded to how do we interpret some of the outcome measures when we look at the patient population. And I think that’s important because as we shared earlier in the phase 3 studies in naïve patients with wet AMD a lot of the benefit of visual acuity gain and reduction in retinal thickness occurred within the first few months of initiating therapy. And we know that these subjects have come in with long standing history of wet AMD and received a long of injections coming in. So when we think about subjects who have been on regular treatment and converting them to gene therapy, maintenance of retinal sickness and maintenance of vision are good outcomes for these particular subjects. I think anything we can get a gain in vision is an additional bonus that can potentially be impacted by the different PK profiles or either history of injections, but again maintenance here in terms of retinal sickness and vision are really good outcomes for these subjects who have had a long standing history of disease. So again, just to summarize these are patients who’ve demonstrated a high need for anti-VEGF injections. They’ve come in with years of long standing therapy and I think that’s important to think about when you look at the results from retinal thickness and for visual acuity.

Our next question comes from Reni Benjamin with Raymond James. Your line is now open.

Can we maybe just talk a little bit more again about cohort 3 and this difference I guess in anti-VEGF injections that’s noted here. Is there anything else regarding this patient population, like are they younger patients, were they relatively newly diagnosed and just started the therapies. Kind of related to that, as far as the trial design goes, is there a wash out period prior to the RGX-314 administration or could they’ve gotten an anti-VEGF injection relatively closer to that administration?

In terms of the data point characteristics of the subject and the three cohorts, they all really came in on average with the same years of therapy prior to coming in. So these subjects in cohort 3 really did demonstrate also a high need for anti-VEGF injections with long standing history. So I think when we look at the results in terms of the comparison, I think it needs to be looked through with a lens and these are all similar types of subjects. They all had similar ages in terms of the demographics across the three different cohorts, and so this is a small study with six subjects per arm. So you need to consider that in terms of looking at the demographics, but again similar age, similar years of therapy coming in in to the trial. In terms of washout, there was no washout that was required as part of the entrance in to the clinical trial. We did require an injection with anti-VEGF therapy before entering or upon entering to the trial to confirm responsiveness to anti-VEGF therapy. And so on study day number one, they were provided anti-VEGF injection and brought back a week later to look for a response on OCT imaging. So we did confirm that these subjects continue to be responsive to anti-VEGF therapy. That particular injection that they received a part of the study is not included in terms of their medical history or how we’ve characterized the historical number of injections.

Can you help us understand the CRT results a little bit more? I guess you see this change but you guys are saying that it’s still stable. So how much of a change would you typically see among these patients or you would continue to classify the stable versus when it starts becoming a potential problem.

It’s a great question and I think again this goes back to the patient population that we’re evaluating here in the clinical trial. In general when we think about changes in CRT we’re using a cut-off of about 30 microns in change to determine something that might be a more significant change whether an increase or decrease in retinal sickness. And again these subjects especially in cohort 3 have come in with CRT levels that are within the range of normal or close to kind of normal ranges, using the methodology that we have used in terms of the imaging machine and measuring CRT sickness. So again these are subjects who have received lots of anti-VEGF therapy in their history and have really received benefit in terms of reducing their retinal thickness from regular therapy. So when we think about converting them from regular anti-VEGF injection in to a gene therapy, maintenance of retinal thickness is a good outcome for these subjects in terms of the outcomes that we’re looking for, for therapy.

And then just one final one from me, regarding the phase 2, and I know Ken you had mentioned that you guys are just in the planning phases. But may be just taking a step back, could this potentially be used for an accelerated step to approval and do you have any thoughts regarding or could you summarize just the latest FDA guidance for an indication like wet AMD?

We really have just started to accumulate a deeper understanding within the company and with our investigators of the trial data that we’re seeing. The work now that’s going to start in the second half of the year is preparing the program for the type of thinking about how to advance in to our next study in 2019. And I think we see a lot of options based on what we see as encouraging data here for RGX-314. So we’ll begin those discussions and we’ll be able to update the market and investors along the way.

Thank you. I show no further questions in the queue. So I’d like to turn it back over to Mr. Mills for closing remarks.

That’s great. Well thanks everyone for your participation and listening this morning. We’re highly encouraged and positive about the updates that we provided today and look forward to seeing everyone very soon. Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen that does conclude today’s conference. Thank you very much for your participation. You may all disconnect. Have a wonderful day.