The prespecified statistical criterion for the primary endpoint was not met in the ACTIVATE-KidsT study, the observed transfusion reduction response was higher for mitapivat compared to placebo. Could you elaborate on the clinical relevance of this finding and what it means for children with PK deficiency?

The study showed that a higher proportion of patients in the mitapivat arm achieved transfusion-free response and normal hemoglobin response compared to the placebo arm. How significant are these secondary endpoints in the overall management of PK deficiency in pediatric patients?

The safety profile of mitapivat in children was consistent with that observed in adults. Can you discuss the importance of these safety findings in the context of pediatric treatment, and are there any specific considerations for monitoring these patients?

The ACTIVATE-KidsT study utilized Bayesian methodology, borrowing data from the adult ACTIVATE-T study. Can you explain the advantages and potential limitations of this approach in pediatric clinical trials?

Considering the reduction in transfusion needs and achievement of normal hemoglobin levels, what potential improvements in quality of life can pediatric patients and their families expect from mitapivat treatment?

With the upcoming readout of the ACTIVATE-Kids study in children who are not regularly transfused, what are your expectations for mitapivat's efficacy and safety in this subgroup? How might this impact the broader pediatric population with PK deficiency?

How does mitapivat compare to current supportive therapies for pediatric PK deficiency, particularly in terms of efficacy, safety, and long-term outcomes?

Agios has mentioned plans to extend their pediatric studies to other rare hemolytic anemias such as thalassemia and sickle cell disease. What potential does mitapivat have in treating these conditions, and what challenges might arise in expanding its use?