Anthony Petrone: It would be on duration of implant and label for iDose, you have your primary study at a three-month endpoint, you had a 12-month secondary end point, but I believe the company has referenced data on the implant out to five years. So there’s a wide range of scenarios there. Just any high-level thinking on what the duration of the implant for iDose could be?
Tom Burns: Yes. Let me address that again. Happy to. Remember, the primary efficacy endpoint and the basis for our approval will be a three-month determination of the iDose to show non-inferiority versus topical theme and you’ve seen the data. And I think we can all agree that we have a high degree of confidence that at least we’ll have a reasonable argument to assure FDA approval moving forward. There is no longer-term pivotal endpoint for the high-dose device. What we’ve done prior to the FDA pivotal was to conduct this robust Phase II data that we carried out to three years. That will be the basis for how we’ll approach payers for how well this product works longer term. And I think we’ll be assured that, that data, I think payers will be assured with that data that the product does indeed provide substantive coverage for patients all the way out to three years.
When you talk about the five-year data remember, that was a cold set of patients from the Phase IIb study that were exchanged. So 33 patients where we pulled from that, the reconsented to have an exchange of the iDose device. And it was there that we came up with some pretty pristine data on endothelial cell loss to show that the exchange can be done with reasonable safety and security.
Anthony Petrone: Thank you.
Operator: And our next question comes from the line of George Sellers from Stephens. George, please go ahead.
George Sellers: Hey. Good afternoon. And thanks for taking the question. Maybe just one quick one for me. But could you just remind us thinking back to 2022 and the end of 2021, how your market share of MIGS procedures in the US shifted some reimbursement changes. And do you have a sense for where that share went?
Joe Gilliam: George, it’s Joe. I mean, if you look back at our results in 2022 on our US glaucoma franchise pretty consistently every quarter, we were down about 15% on a year-over-year basis. I think that gives you a pretty good sense of at least in that time period, the share shift that occurred. Beyond that, I don’t have the data in front of me in terms of where that went, but I would say that the lion’s share of that went to some combination of either canal plastic procedures or goniotomy procedures depending upon surgical preference.
George Sellers: Okay. Great. Thanks for that color. And I’ll leave it at just one. Thanks all for the time.
Joe Gilliam: Thanks, George.
Tom Burns: Thanks, George.
Operator: All right. At this time, there are no further questions. I’ll turn it back over to the company.
Tom Burns: Okay. So I want to thank all of you again for your time and attention today, and we always thank you for your continued interest and support of Glaukos. So with that, goodbye.
Operator: That does conclude today’s call. Have a pleasant day.
