The, the Willow trial, the phase two trial, I mean, was, was really primarily exploratory. It was proof of concept. Uh, it was underpowered. I was, uh, I would have been, or I was quite surprised that it hit its primary outcome measure. I did not think it would be powered enough to see a diminishment in exacerbation risk or incident. Um, I thought some of the other outcome measures we might see, you know, improvements in quality of life and decrease in. Neutrophil the last days and things like that. But, but it, you know, it turned out to be kind of a home run, really. I mean, it, it hit its primary outcome measure. It was great, and it wasn't that large a trial. Um, and not only that, it hit, hit it in both doses. It was really kind of a 2 for 1 deal. It's two trials in one, and we saw real consistent effect with both the 10 mg and the 25 mg dose. So, um, that was. I guess, maybe also a little surprising. I think a lot of us thought, you know, we'll see some dose effect, right? Like with most studies where there's two doses, you often see a dose effect, um, but with this one, we didn't. Of course, that didn't bother me that much. I mean, there's, there's a lot of times where you don't see that. You, you know, you have both doses above whatever threshold's needed, so they both behave the same, or on the flip side, they're both below where they need to be, and they both behave the same. So, sometimes you don't see a dose effect. But that it was intriguing, um. You know, the, the magnitude of improvement in terms of exacerbation risk was not off the charts, but it was decent, and it was comparable to what we've seen with anything else, uh, or, or slightly better. So, I think, I mean, it was a very exciting phase two program, um, based on the data, and, you know, again, we saw the exact same thing in both arms. So it made me, or both doses, so it made me feel like it's, it's probably real. I mean, We, we hit the same thing with 22 different doses compared to placebo, so it's like a 2 for 1 deal. So interphase 3, you know, it is largely designed exactly the same way. It was a larger study. And, um, amazingly and instantly, interestingly, even despite a pandemic, we saw the um exact same thing. I mean, there was really no difference in anything. It's the, the doses worked the same, we saw the same reduction of risk, we saw the same, I mean, it was really remarkable. So I, I think you have 4 trials, uh, 4 trials in a row, really, if you think about it that way, that all say the same thing. So it really makes you believe that uh this wasn't a fluke, that this is a, A pathway, when targeted, it actually, uh, does benefit the patient. So, uh, you know, every once in a while you get a, a one-off phase two trial, it's positive, and, you know, it turns out to be a fluke. You just, you don't see the same thing in phase three, but, but here, of course, we did, and it was really reassuring. Uh, we also didn't see a dose effect with regards to any outcome, except for one, and I will mention it because it's really important. Around, you know, 4 to 6 months into the trial, uh, you do see some, Uh, difference in FEV1. In the higher dose patients, they seem to have better preservation of FEV1 than the 10 mg patients. So, um, that was a pretty small difference, but it was emerging, um, and if I recall, it was statistically significant. Uh, the question is whether it'll hold up or if it's real. I mean, these are the kinds of things we need to, uh, figure out in a phase 4 study. But it was intriguing, and it did support the idea that maybe the higher dose is, is more efficacious.
Presenter
