EyePoint Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Good morning. My name is Tawanda and I'll be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the I-Corps First Quarter 2025 Financial Results and Recent Corporate Development Conference Call. There will be a question and answer session to follow at the completion of the prepared remarks. Please be advised that this call is being recorded at the continuation request. I will now like to turn the call over to George Elston, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of I-Corps. Sir, you may begin.

Thank you and thank you all for joining us on today's conference call to discuss I-Corps First Quarter 2025 Financial Results and Recent Corporate Development. With me today is Dr. Jay Gukher, President and Chief Executive Officer of I-Corps. Jay will begin with a review of recent corporate updates and discuss the ongoing clinical trials for JuraView. I will close with commentary on the I-Corps First Quarter 2025 Financial Results and we will then open the call for your questions.

Earlier this morning, we issued a press release detailing our financial results and recent corporate developments. A copy of the release can be found in the investor relations tab on the company website .ipointpharma.com. Before we begin our formal comments, I'll remind you that various remarks we will make today

constitute forward-looking statements for the purposes of state harbor provisions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These include statements about our future expectations, clinical developments and regulatory matters and timelines, the potential success of our products and product candidates, financial projections and our plans and prospects. Actual results may differ materially from those indicated by these forward-looking statements as

a result of various important factors

including

those in the risk factor section of our most recent annual report on Form 10-K which is on file with the SEC and in other filings that we have may or may make with the SEC in the future. Any forward-looking statements represent our views as of today only. While we may elect to update these forward-looking statements at some point in the future, we specifically disclaim any obligation to do so even if our views change. Therefore, you should not rely on these forward-looking statements as representing our views as of any date subsequent to today. I'll now turn the call over to Dr. Jay Gugler, President and Chief Executive Officer of iPoint.

Thank you, George. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us. We are proud to report yet another quarter of exceptional execution as we advance our lead program review through late-stage clinical development. Notably, we continue to receive strong positive feedback from both physicians and patients for our ongoing global phase three trials, Lugano and Lucia for Dervisian and -age-related macular degeneration or wet-AMD, underscoring the impressive enrollment rate we are seeing. In fact, as we reported in this morning's press release, we have randomized over 90 percent of patients into the Lugano trial and over 50 percent into the Lucia trial. This gives us great confidence that we will meet our timeline's complete enrollment in the second half of 2025 and deepens our conviction that DeReview is on track to be the first market of the current investigational sustained release treatments for wet-AMD. We believe this clinical momentum highlights the significant opportunity for DeReview as a differentiated treatment option in treating retinal disease. Our team is committed to our goal of delivering life-changing treatments to patients with severe retinal diseases, beginning with wet-AMD. I want to take a moment to review why we believe DeReview is a -in-class program and represents a compelling and strategically de-risked opportunity in wet-AMD. First, DeReview is not another antivagate program. DeReview is a clinically validated, differentiated, and potentially -in-class sustained release TKI. DeReview's receptor-level inhibition of VEGF, blocking all isoforms of VEGF, offers a broader and possibly more durable disease control compared to current wide-hand blocking therapeutics. By also blocking pediatric receptors, DeReview may help reduce a key driver of long-term visual loss, which could further differentiate this potential wet-AMD therapy.

Next,

DeReview's efficacy is supported by our Phase I and Phase II data sets, which are the most robust investigational data sets in wet-AMD amongst all sustained delivery programs. In our Phase II W02 trial in wet-AMD, in a -to-treat population, approximately two-thirds of patients remained rescue-free for six months, and nearly half remained rescue-free for one year, with stable vision and anatomy from a single DeReview treatment. DeReview has established a very favorable safety profile, with no DeReview-related ocular or systemic SAEs observed in over 190 patients evaluated across clinical trials for multiple indications. Additionally, there are also four FA-approved products using our DURISR technology, administered to tens of thousands of patients in real-world settings with a strong safety record. Our Phase III non-inferiority program was developed in direct alignment with the FDA, follows recognized industry best practices, and is strategically designed to enhance the probability of both regulatory and commercial success. And finally, DeReview has the potential to address a large unmet need in an established and growing multi-billion dollar market, where patients are actively seeking safe, durable, longer-acting treatments. I want to also highlight our excitement around the potential for DURREVIEW in diabetic macular edema, or DME. While our company is currently focused on the execution of our wet AMD Phase III program, our recently reported positive 24-week Phase II results in DME further validates both the mechanism of action of erolinib and the commercial potential of our DURISR technology across multiple large retinal disease markets. Turning to wet AMD, our goal in the Phase III trials is to demonstrate that DURREVIEW can maintain stable vision and retinal anatomy for the majority of wet AMD patients within every six-month dosing schedule. This would represent a significant improvement compared to the current anti-veget treatments in the U.S. that are dosed on average every two months. From a clinical perspective, this would provide patients and practitioners with the flexibility to reduce the number of visits without sacrificing visual outcomes, and would ensure compliance over that six-month interval. Since initiating our Phase III trials, we've seen remarkable patients and physician interest, supporting the life-altering potential of DURREVIEW. I'm pleased that both the Lugano and Lucia trials continue to meaningfully surpass our enrollment expectations, with patient randomization in excess of 90% for the Lugano trial and over 50% for the Lucia trial. These enrollment rates significantly exceed those observed in Comparisable, Historic,

and

other ongoing wet AMD trials, which we believe is driven by DURREVIEW's robust clinical data package, including an outstanding safety profile and established efficacy demonstrated in the robust W-2 Phase II trial. This also highlights the significant need for more durable treatment options. The continued support and enthusiasm for DURREVIEW from the retinal community not only reinforces our expected enrollment completion in both pivotal trials in the second half of this year, but also reaffirms our confidence in our de-risk trial design. Our global, double-mapped, identical trials reflect a tried and true non-inferiority design used in the last four wet AMD drug approvals. There are several key reasons why we believe our well-powered, rigorously controlled program is structured to produce data that support approval and are meaningful for retinal specialists and patients. First, the Lugano and Lucia trials were specifically designed for regulatory and commercial success. Our trial design was informed by a robust Phase II trial and multiple FDA interactions, with written agreement from the agency on our access to approval. Second, our trials incorporate a fixed, pre-specified, every six month dosing for DURREVIEW, a clean, predictable design that mirrors intended real-world use and that provides a clear regulatory pathway. Learning from our Phase II, supplemental injections are only permitted if a patient meets strict, predefined criteria and are adjudicated in a mass manner to minimize variability and bias. Our discipline protocol is aimed at eliminating physician discretion and unnecessary supplemental treatments. Finally, the inclusion of both treatment-naive and previously treated patients enhances the broad applicability of our data and can support Notch's approval that increased physician adoption and a potentially broader label. As we continue to execute in the clinic, we are also laying the foundation for a potential commercial launch with our -the-art GMP-compliant manufacturing facility in Northbridge, Massachusetts. Our facility is operational and will be capable of producing more than one million DURREVIEW treatments annually to support expected global demand. Importantly, we are well positioned with regard to potential tariff impacts as we also source our API from a U.S. space manufacturer. Turning to our DME program, DURREVIEW met the trials' primary and secondary endpoints for our Phase II Verona trial, demonstrating compelling efficacy and durability results. DURREVIEW is the only sustained release CKI program that demonstrated activity and safety in DME. DME is the second-largest retinal disease indication, representing a $3 billion market opportunity by 2030. We believe DURREVIEW is uniquely positioned to potentially extend the therapeutic dosing interval compared to currently available treatment options. To recap the Verona results, both DURREVIEW doses met the primary endpoint of longer time to first supplement versus the flipper self-control. DURREVIEW 2.7 milligrams demonstrated an early, sustained, and clinically meaningful improvement in best corrected visual acuity, or BCDA, with a gain of 7.1 layers compared to the baseline, and a central subfield thickness, or CSD, improvement of 76 microns on OCD measurement. This represented a 75% more drying effect versus the flipper self-control. Immediate bioavailability to drugs was demonstrated from the visual and anatomic gains observed as early as week four, and were much more robust than those achieved in the flipper self-control eyes at this time point. A subset of unsupplemented patients further supported the robust results of the DURREVIEW arms. These highly positive phase two data will be critical in our planned engagement with the FDA this summer to solidify plans for a pivotal program. In summary, our identical pivotal phase three Lugano and Lucia trials and wedding date are exceeding expectations and remain on track to complete enrollment in the second half of this year with top line data for both trials in the second half of 2026. The positive safety and efficacy data from the phase two Gerona trial in DME further strengthens the DURREVIEW's profile as a potentially paradigm shifting treatment option, and positions to review to become a potential multi-billion dollar blockbuster franchise in the two largest retinal diseases. Finally, thank you to the entire IPA team for another strong quarter and for your unwavering commitment to our collective goal of improving patients' lives through better vision. Outside of our organization, it's been humbling to see such high levels of engagement from the patients and clinical investigators eager to participate in our ongoing trials. We deeply appreciate your confidence in us, and we're proud to advance our therapeutics for the benefit of the entire retina community. With our best in class sustained ocular delivery technology and promising clinical pipeline across multiple blockbuster indications, we look forward to continued progress towards our upcoming milestones as the leader in sustained ocular drug delivery. I will now turn the call over to George to review the financials. George? Thank

you

Jay.

To begin, we continue disciplined financial

management

and good stewardship of our resources, ending the first quarter with $318.2 million in cash and investments. We affirm previous guidance and expect

this cash will support our operations into 2027 beyond key data readouts from our phase three Lugano and the chief of pivotal trials next year. As the financial results for the three months ended

March 31, 2025 were included in the press release issued this

morning, my comments today will be focused on a high level review for the quarter. For the quarter ended March 31, 2025, total net revenue was $24.5 million compared to $11.7 million for the quarter ended March 31, 2024. Net product revenue for the quarter ended March 31, 2025 was $0.7 million,

consistent with the quarter ended March 31, 2024. We expect net product revenue to continue at immaterial levels as we will no longer be supplying you seats to ANI Pharmaceuticals, our U.S. partner, after May 31, 2025. Consistent with our strategy, our manufacturing focus forward is on our DuraView program to support clinical trials of potential NDA filings in future commercial launch.

Net revenue from royalties and collaborations for the quarter ended March 31, 2025, totaled $23.7 million compared to $11 million in the corresponding period in 2024. The increase was primarily driven by recognition of remaining deferred revenue from the outlicense of UT U.S. rights in 2023. Operating expenses for the quarter ended March 31, 2025, totaled $73.3 million compared to $45 million in the prior year period.

This increase was primarily driven by the ongoing Luzgano and Luciere phase three trials for DuraView and wet AMD as enrollment is tracking ahead of expectations. Net non-operating income totaled $3.6 million and net loss was $45.2 million or $0.65 per share compared to a net loss of $29.3 million or $0.55 per share for the prior year period. As I noted earlier,

cash, cash equivalents and investments in marketable security on March 31, 2025 totaled $318.2 million compared to

$371 million as of December 31, 2024. In conclusion, we are incredibly pleased with iPoint's progress so far in 2025 and remain well capitalized to deliver DuraView phase three data in 2026. I will now turn the call back over to Jay for closing remarks.

Thank you, George. As outlined this morning, we ended the first quarter in an excellent position and remain committed to advancing DuraView, a -in-class program across multiple indications in retinal disease. We believe iPoint represents a significant investment opportunity that is meaningfully deripped both clinically and financially. Our strong balance sheet will enable us to execute on our upcoming clinical milestones, which include enrollment completion in the phase three Lugano-Lunchia trials and wet AMD expected in the second half of 2025, top-line data for these trials anticipated in 2026, and an end of phase two meeting with the FDA around a pivotal trial in DME this summer. To close, 2025 is off to a great start for iPoint. The progress we've achieved to date underscores our dedication to advancing our pipeline and delivering innovative treatments to improve the lives of patients suffering from serious retinal diseases. We're very excited to continue our momentum and look forward to providing additional updates in the coming quarters. Thank you all very much for your attention this morning. I will now turn the call back over to the operator for your questions.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, to ask the questions, please press star 1-1 on your telephone, then wait for your name to be announced. To withdraw your question, please press star 1-1 again. As usual, we'll try to get through as many questions as we can through the course of the call, but if you limit the number of questions you ask to one, it will give others a fair chance to participate. Please stand by while we compile the hearing and roster.

And before we start with the Q&A, I would like to reiterate a few points that we just made. At iPoint, we're completely focused on the execution of our pivotal phase three wet MD trials, Lugano and Lucia, and the preparation for our NDA filing, which includes the manufacturing of registration batches in our Northbridge, Massachusetts commercial facility. Based on our terrific phase two W2 data, the rapid enrollment in our phase three trials, and the continued clean safety profile for Duraview, we are confident in the value creation that successful Lugano and Lucia results will produce. With respect to strategy, we are focused on value creation for our current shareholders while advancing Duraview through phase three trials. This means good stewardship of our cash while maximizing the value of Duraview. We're now happy to take some questions.

Thank you. Our first question comes from the line of Jennifer Tim with Cancer. Your line is open. Hi, good morning. Congrats on the progress

and thanks for taking our question. Maybe to start off, I understand that you've reiterated guidance to complete phase three enrollment in the second half of this year, but just looking at the pace of enrollment here, it seems like you guys are well on track to complete enrollment, maybe earlier than investors appreciate. Am I thinking about this the right way, or can you help us walk us through the math here?

Thanks for the question. We are still guiding to full enrollment in both trials in the second half. This year, but yet if you look at the public statements we've made around enrollment and draw a line through the data points, we could certainly potentially have completion of enrollment in the first trial of Lugano in the second quarter of this year. That remains to be seen. You may know that the start of the Lucia trial was approximately two months or so after Lugano, and we would expect that the Lucia results will come in approximately two months after Lugano as well.

Okay, that's helpful. And in fact, I'd like to take one more question, just this D&E underpriced opportunity. Can you just remind us what you're looking for in your upcoming meeting with the FDA and just some comments on, I guess, timing and potential outcomes?

Thanks. Sure. We have our Chief Medical Officer, Romero Rubero on the line also. Romero, do you want to talk a little bit about the upcoming end of phase two meeting with the FDA over D&E? Sure.

Hey, Jennifer. So we are going to be proposing a clinical plan, linear phase 3 study, that brings frequency to our program. So we are going to propose one single study comparing our drug to standard care, and the primary endpoint is going to be as expected for the D&E trial BCDA. We're planning to have the meeting with the FDA soon, as Jay mentioned, and we have that by December.

Okay.

Thanks again, guys. Thank you. Please stand by for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of test. Romero with JPMorgan. Your line is open.

Hey, JPMorgan. Thanks so much for taking our questions this morning. A big picture. So what do you attribute the rapid pace of enrollment here in your phase 3 wet AMD trials? Anything anecdotally you can tell us on what you are hearing from your clinical sites? And secondly, where are you most focused in terms of clinical trial execution in terms of mitigating any risk? Thanks so much.

Terrific questions, Tess. Thank you very much for them. Again, I'm going to attribute most of our success in the rapid enrollment to Romero and his team, and I'm going to let him again answer that question on why it is that we're rapidly enrolling, as well as what he and his team are focusing on to make sure our results are sound. Yes, Tess. Thanks for the

question. So I think the number one feedback we get from our investigators is that our study is patient-centric, is easy to follow, and the robust data that we have from phase 2 study, as well as our phase 1 program, keeps them confident when they are discussing the patient and potentially offering participation in the study. Of course, we do a lot of things to make the study easy for sites and patients, but the most important part is the robust data that we have that gives confidence to investigators and patients. I think we are doing an excellent job identifying any potential risks in our phase 2 program on the conduct of this study, so we look at our areas to ensure the integrity of the data is pursued so that it can be efficient on our NDA solutions.

Thank you. Thank you. Will you stand by for our next question? Our next question comes from the line of Tyler Van Buren with PDCOLA. Your line is open.

Hey guys, good morning. The enrollment progress is very, very impressive. So with the increased timelines to enrollment completion in the Ludano and Ruchira trials, does it make sense to potentially run a small phase 2 study in RBO considering that it is a significant additional opportunity and part of the market beyond what ND&DME? Is there any way that you could do this in a cost-efficient manner as we wait for the phase 3 data?

Yeah, hi Tyler. Thanks for the question. It is really something that we've thought about really more in the long term of how we can create more value around the review and what are the other potential add-on indications. RBO is certainly one of them, but as I stated in my comments, we are really focused on RBO right now and on our cash runway after data. And so the value that we would get at this point from an RBO trial probably is not something that would suggest to us that it's a pathway we could take right now with the anticipation of and the phase 3 program. I'm sure you'll see expansion into other areas for which your view might be beneficial such as RBO. And I think there's some areas which you could certainly think about other expansion of the market too. For example, we think with the growing number of high MIOPs in the world that MIOPic quality of excretation would be another area that the review would do very well in. So yes, this is part of the longer term program, but I don't

think we're going to see it in the short term.

Thank you. Please stand by for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of reaction from media.

Hey guys, thank you for taking my question. Maybe just a quick one for me. Are you able to comment on the screen failure rate for both studies? Also the type of patient or the mix of patients, naive versus as an exposed patient that you are able to enroll and anything you are able to comment on the safety side at least on the blinded basis given that one study is almost complete with common enrollment perspective. Thank you.

Thanks, Adam. Nice to hear from you again. With respect to screen failure rates, what I can say is historically screen failure rates in wet AMD are approximately 50 percent and we're doing a little bit better than that in both trials. And there's always some learning, though the screen failure rates at the beginning of the trial tend to be a little higher and as the doctors understand exactly what type of patient meets the criteria, the screen failure rates do go down and we're seeing that in both trials. With respect to the mix of naive versus previously treated, we're going for approximately 75 percent naive, 25 percent previously treated and given the reality that previously treated patients are already in the doctor's practices and can be identified ahead of time, we anticipated at the beginning of both trials most of the enrolled patients would be previously treated and that's in fact what we saw and early on in both trials, we capped the number of patients who were previously treated, we capped the enrollments so that from now and both trials we're just recruiting naive patients and this is against the expected. What we've been very surprised about is we expected that the rapid enrollments early on with the allowance of previously treated patients would slow down once we capped them and we didn't see that. What's been remarkable is that in both trials the enrollment rates have been very high and very steady. As for release of masks, mask data, we really are thinking about doing that right now. I think we might do that in the future. Certainly things like mask data around demographics of the patients would not be something that would compromise the registrational trials by introducing any operational bias or the ability to have a well-controlled trial but we're certainly not going to disclose things piecemeal and we're compromising the data that's been reached in the operational bias. So with respect to safety, what I can say in general is that based on our public statements prior, the safety of the review has been very, very good.

Excellent, thank you.

Thank you. Please stand by for our next question. Our next question comes from around the can be Zoffy with Jeffery.

Thank you so much for the questions. A couple for me. How should we model R&D going forward? And then separately, as curious as it could be, so kind of the provider's perspective on how biosimilars are shaping the wet AMD market, would you consider biosimilar market? What's the process loading in a post-marketing study for DuraView? It's obviously not at all a focus for you right now but I'm sure it's on your perspective if there could be any value in exploring that. Thank you.

Thanks, Kadeese. Appreciate the questions. Let me take the second one first and then I'll ask George to comment on R&D costs going forward. First of all, we're agnostic to the biosimilar market whether a doctor, if and when we get approval with in every six months dosing interval, what the doctor chooses to load with before the use of DuraView, we're really agnostic to that. We have no reason to believe that a biosimilar FLIRSTEP would behave any differently than any than on label FLIRSTEP. The rest of it, you know, with respect to any other loading of the NAHF, whether it's off label like Vastin, Rescentus, or Bismil, the three monthly doses, you wouldn't expect a patient to respond any differently to any of them over those first three months. So if you look at all of the curves of all the approved drugs, you look at the first three months, they're really quite similar in their visual acuity improvement and the OCT improvement. So as a general rule, we wouldn't think the choice of a live-in blocker for the load would make any difference. George, do you want to go ahead and talk about anticipated R&D costs?

Sure, and, Kambi, thanks for the question. As I noted on the call, our R&D burn is up year over year, but that's really driven by the exceptional recruitment we've seen. And part two of that is our cash guidance has unchanged. So if you think about R&D in 2025, your prior year or your current model is probably correct for the full year, but we just spent more in Q1 because the trials are going so well. So I think full year is probably the same, just move some of that burn you may have in Q2 and Q3 up a little bit.

Great, thank you so much.

Thank you. Please stand back for our next question. Our next question comes from Alana Gregg from Vanavia with Mizzoula. Your line is open.

Hi all, this is Sam Montreux Gregg. Thank you for taking our questions. Maybe a couple from me. Has

there

been some shortages at co-care assistance programs that we've been hearing about, like retinal disease companies impacting the enrollments in your studies in any way? And also, that's a really good enrollment. Can you point to anything specific in terms of either trial design or differentiating factors that one would choose enrolling in your study versus that of your competitors? Thank you.

Thanks for the question, Sam. And they are good timing of the questions and really topical. So that co-care assistance program that Sam mentioned is called the Good Days program and it was funded to allow for co-cares for patients who were not totally covered for their branded either wet energy drugs or GA drugs. For reasons that I'm not sure have been totally made public, but the companies that have funded Good Days in the past chose not to fund it so far in 2025. What this means is that patients who have the onset of wet energy and do not have secondary coverage or coverage for the co-pages and want to be treated with a branded drug could have significant -of-pocket costs. So we expect that this is helping our enrollment because obviously we would offer, you know, no charge of the drugs in our study. So that the lack of the Good Days program I'm sure is lifting all boats here and I would expect that all of the wet energy trials would benefit from that. As for specifics around why doctors are choosing our trial, we believe, first to a large degree, again I'd like to defer to Romero about anything specific that his interactions with our investigators and the investigational sites are telling them about this.

Yeah, thanks for the question, Sam. As I mentioned, the number one feedback we get from is the fact that we have run a robust large phase 230. And that provides them confidence on the data, the efficacy data, but most important on the paper data that gives them comfort on offering these studies to our patients, knowing that we have those over 190 patients we have to review. And then after that, things like, you know, being a study that is very patient-centric. So every patient is treated in this study either with a super test or with our investigation of drug. How easy it is to conduct the study, it's not too burdened to patients and physicians, and great support that I point to providing to sites via our clinical operations team as well as our medical care

team. Thank you. Please stand by for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Nick Quarter-Pella with BEAR. Your line is open.

Hey everyone, this is Nick on recalling. Thanks for taking your question and I just want to get a little more color on how the FDA views the impact of rescues on the primary endpoints for MDs. I was wondering if there's a number on how many rescues are allowed and is there a certain window for rescues that are not allowed, for example, within a number of weeks before within the primary endpoints?

Thanks. Thanks for the question, Nick. First of all, our interactions with the FDA around rescues have been consistent. They have not had any of the interactions either at our TIC meeting in 2022 or the end of AC meeting in 2024 suggested that there was a number of rescues by which a patient would be eliminated from the trial per se. What does that mean? Well, this is an intensive treat study. The top line data will be from all and then sensitivity analysis will be applied to the patients who got supplemented or rescued. And remember, in our trial, the control of the flip-recept arm can also be rescued. So there will be also a calculation of the rescues compared in each arm. With respect to timing of rescues, that was not something that was ever brought up at either of our meetings and there's nothing in writing that we've received from the FDA about meeting the timing of a rescue or that a patient who got rescued at a certain point in the study would be eliminated from the study. That's not something that the FDA has brought up with us.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Please stand back for our next question. Our next question comes from Alana Satterjee with Jones's. Alana Satterjee.

Hi. Thanks for taking my question. So, you know, I have another follow-up on the biosimilars. So based on your cable interactions, especially let's say at Arbo, to what extent do you see Amgen's Bablu impacting the wetting decommersure landscape? And maybe could you comment on the impact

of the biosecurity? Well, thanks for the question. And there's some things, obviously, that we've been thinking about and projecting. It's hard for me to answer the question about how the biosimilars will impact the market in general. Once again, with respect to Duraview, we don't believe they'll have any impact on Duraview's acceptance because we're a different MOA, different target, and we last six months or longer with a single injection, something that none of the biosimilars can do. Right now, the last data I saw was the biosimilar market was still quite small in the United States. I think it's running about 5% of the usage, and much of it, again, is driven by economics, economics either to the payer or to the physician practice. I think in order to try to project out how biosimilars are going to be adopted, I think you have to take a look at the economics of them, and that's just a general statement that really, again, has nothing in particular to do with our drug. Pricing is something that we're thinking about and that we're working through. And again, George, if you want to make a comment at a high level, how are you in pricing and whether we think biosimilars will impact that at all? Happy to have you comment.

Yeah, and thank you for those questions. I think going back to what Jason during the call is, Verge is not another anti-VEGF, and as our team thinks about approaching it in the marketplace, we're bringing something very different. We're not another lag end blocker. We're bringing sustained delivery, new MOA, and that's going to be a very important part of our negotiation, not just with FDA, but ultimately with payers. And so, just broadly speaking, if you look at the trial design for DuraView, one DuraView replaces three anti-VEGFs, and so as you think about your pricing models, that's a good place to start.

Okay, great. That's very helpful. Thank you. Thank you.

Please stand by for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Greg Harrison with Social Bank. Your line is open.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for taking our question. This is Joe for Greg. Just thinking to the future a little bit here, assuming Mugano and Lucia will read out a different rate, is there potential for rolling NDA submissions? And how might that impact your top line data release strategy in the second half of 2016? Thank you.

Thanks for the questions, Joe. The NDA submission is really the rate-lifting step is last visit, last patient in of this second trial, in our case the Lucia trial. From a rolling perspective, you know, there's an internal rolling that we're doing already, which is preparing the various documents and the various sections that we already have, and we will fully expect to just as the data comes in from the two trials, drop the data into the documents so that we can shorten the time between last patient in top line results and actual NDA submission. Romero again is really deep into this and I've asked him to make any other comments about steps that we're taking to minimize that time between last patient, last visit in submission.

Thanks, Jay. So as Jay mentioned, the limitation factor for the full submission is going to be the last patient on the second study. However, since Mugano is rolling quite fast, we might have a good opportunity to accelerate things, especially the interpretation of the on the first study. And because the two studies are so similar, that would certainly bring efficiency when we are doing things for the second study, meaning that, you know, there's a lot of analysis, interpretation, writing that needs to happen. If we do that for the first study, again, because the second study is identical, we certainly bring efficiency when we do that

again for the second study. Okay. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Please stand by for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of Gail Jentz with Laitlaw and Cutten. Your line is open.

Thanks for taking the questions. I'll just actually follow up on the previous one, which is when the data release next year, would that two data, would that be two, roughly two months of pop or each of those, or you have other plans and things?

Good morning, Gail. Thanks for the question. Well, approximately two months, I think, is likely. We'll know, obviously, when that last patient is enrolled in the first trial and then the last patient is enrolled in the second trial. The mathematics will be pretty easy at that point. Artsland, because we do expect them to be separated by several months, we will release the data as the data becomes available in each trial. But again, we anticipate it will be approximately two months apart based on the study start and based on the similar enrollment patterns that we're seeing in those trials.

Okay, great. And congratulations on your enrollment.

Thank you. Please stand by for our next question. Our next question comes from the line of G. Shearing with H.E. Wainwright and Elani Sultan.

Good morning. This is Eduardo on for you. Thanks for taking the question. I had a question regarding the baseline patient characteristics in Bugano and Lucia Shiles. It seems like prior trials you had BCDA letters between 35 and 85. And now it's between 35 and 78. I'm just curious if you see what's the rationale behind using that cutoff at 78 instead of 75 letters, 85 letters.

Sure, Eduardo. Good question. And the answer to that is in the pivotal trials, I think they have made it clear both historically and in the draft guidelines that you must enroll patients who have active AMD into your trials. And what does that mean? Well, they have to have a vision that shows that they have AMD and that they have an active core lingualt's remembering. And they have to have decreased vision and they have to have some fluid on OCT that is indicative of what AMD fluid. So in order to have decreased vision, there's a cutoff. And historically, I think if you go back to the other AMD trials, 78 letters is very typical for the best vision that is typically allowed into the study. So the quick answer to the question is you have to enroll patients with active AMD.

Got it. That's really helpful. And I'm not sure you mentioned this, but you reported a subgroup within this DNE trial as a 10.2 letter improvement. I'm curious what are the attributes of that patient population and what fraction of the DNE population share those attributes?

Well, so that's a really good question about the attributes, Sherwood. First of all, it was the subgroup of patients in the DNE trial in the high dose, the 2.7 milligram dose, which is the dose we're using in wet AMD and the presumed go to market dose. In that dose, the eyes that did not get rescued, they improved 10 letters. So the implication being is when our drug works in DNE and it seemed to work in the vast majority of those patients out of the 11, it seemed to work quite well. In the majority, it works really, really well. Those patients who were not rescued had an immediate improvement in vision seen at four weeks. They had immediate reduction in their OCT seen at four weeks. And it was sustained in the eyes throughout the study. In other words, at the tail end near 24 weeks, the visual acuity were dropping and the eyes weren't getting more wet. And in fact, in that subgroup, they had about 120 microns improvement in their OCTs. So for that subgroup, it worked really well. Even though, if you look at the patients who did get rescued, there was perhaps only one patient out of that subgroup that you would say that really had active disease during the trial despite the use of our drug. So the other eyes that got rescued got rescued because they didn't have over 10% improvement in their OCTs, but they were still doing pretty well even at the time of rescue. To be that as a name, it would be great to be able to identify those patients, which I think is what your question was getting at. And because the end of the trial was relatively low, I don't think we have enough data right now to state which of the patients who can go six months with great improvement and will not really need a rescue. Obviously, the FIPPA trials will be able to to elucidate that so that the retina community can identify the patients who are going to do best with the drug. Got it. That's really helpful. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Our next question comes from Alana Vigo, Noca Movis with Stady Group. The line is open.

Hi, thank you. Can you just walk through the thinking as far as their views on potentially being forced to file an NDA for the long-acting TKR, given the strength of the enrollment curves that you're seeing across your faith-free program? Thank you.

Thanks for the question, Val. I think the first two files, we talked a little bit about this. What is it dependent on? It's dependent on last patient in, in your second pivotal trial. And we have great confidence, given the enrollment rates that we're seeing in our trials and the timing of the various trials of the other long-acting agents that are out there. We are quite confident that we will get last patient in our second trial before any of the competitors do. Given the length of the trial, 56 weeks, which is similar to what our competitors are doing. And the fact that our eyes get randomized on day one, there's no run-in before randomization. All of this gives us great confidence at this point that we will be first to file and if approved, therefore, we will have the first to market advantage.

Okay. Thank you. And could you just review the positioning with respect to supply chain and IT? You may have talked about it at the beginning, but I may have missed it.

So, -a-vis supply chain for the commercial product, once again, as we did talk about in the opening remarks, our HDI is manufactured in the United States and our inserts are manufactured by us here in Massachusetts. The phase three wet-indie inserts were manufactured in our facility in Watertown. We have built a -the-art manufacturing facility in North Bridge, Massachusetts, which is about an hour west of Watertown. And in that facility, we are in the midst of making registration batches and preparing for FDA, you know, pre-market visits. And we're confident that that facility will be able to supply the entire global needs for DuraView should we get approval. So, from a supply chain perspective, we're really in control of the supply to a very large degree. And remember also with the, Veronim is a small molecule. It's not a biologic. It's not sheen therapy. And as such, the manufacturing is relatively less expensive. And because our inserts only contain each 1.34 milligram of Veronim, batch or run of Veronim can take us a very long way. So, we are quite confident that our supply chain will be intact and that the tariff issues that some companies are facing, we think we are in good shape there.

All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sure no further questions in the queue at this time. This does conclude your program. Thank you for participating in today's conference. You may now disconnect. Everyone have a great day.