So the COMMANDS trial was a positive study, as you know, in first-line therapy of transfusion-dependent, low-risk MDS. Positive in a way that it showed the superiority of luspatercept versus ESA-based therapy in these patients. Study results have been published also in The Lancet a couple of months ago. So this update now with a longer follow-up, to make a long story short, I would say confirms basically the interim analysis which already got published, not only with regards to the response rates, but also with regards to the durability of response, which was actually longer for luspatercept versus ESA-based therapy...
So the COMMANDS trial was a positive study, as you know, in first-line therapy of transfusion-dependent, low-risk MDS. Positive in a way that it showed the superiority of luspatercept versus ESA-based therapy in these patients. Study results have been published also in The Lancet a couple of months ago. So this update now with a longer follow-up, to make a long story short, I would say confirms basically the interim analysis which already got published, not only with regards to the response rates, but also with regards to the durability of response, which was actually longer for luspatercept versus ESA-based therapy. So I think there is nothing new in a sense that the data look different now. I think the good news is the ASH presentation basically confirms what is already known from the interim analysis.