Robbie Marcus: Oh, great. Thanks a lot for taking the questions. Two for me. Maybe to start on full-year organic sales growth guidance. The first quarter was negative. We see the guidance for second quarter, to me it implies either something at the high end to mid-single-digits or the low end of high single-digits. So, given the big step up both in growth rates and in dollars, I realize there’s easier comps from last year. How do you think about your ability to not only just hit those targets, but exceed those targets, given it does require a pretty good step-up each quarter? Thanks.
Lea Knight: Thanks, Robbie. Yes. From a percentage perspective, you’re absolutely right. I think part of the reasons we provided the view that we did on our Slide 10 is to demonstrate that across the portfolio, we are operating or have the ability to operate, and this single-digit growth were better across many parts of the portfolio. So, Robbie, as I look at the second half, what does that mean? It means the international portfolio whose performance we saw on Q1 has to continue the way it’s been continuing. From a Skin perspective, as I mentioned, we expect to catch up to demand in the second half. And so, that will help accelerate the growth from a percentage perspective that you talked about. And then, again from across the other parts of the portfolio, we are seeing growth in DuraSorb, Gentrix, and there’s no reason why those assets won’t continue to perform at those levels, along with kind of main parts of our CSS business.
So, I think there’s a lot of growth potential that is overshadowed to some degree by some of the challenges that we saw and comp issues that we saw in Q1, that will naturally alleviate themselves as we get into the second half of this year.
Robbie Marcus: Great. Maybe if I move down the P&L on margins, maybe you could walk us through exactly what you’re thinking for the composition of margins, gross and operating margin in second quarter, and what you assume in the guidance there in the full year. And maybe higher level, how you’re thinking about the company’s ability to expand margins on a go-forward basis, given I know you’ve been cutting for a while, and now you have a pullback and probably higher quality spend on manufacturing. Thanks a lot.
Lea Knight: Yes. So, as I mentioned to Kristen, from a gross margin perspective on a full-year basis, we were forecasting flat to modestly up year-on-year 2024 versus 2023. We’re now closer to moderately down year-on-year. And again, that has to do with the higher remediation costs from Boston, along with some of the lower utilization and higher scrap that we’ve seen. So, that’s impacting the full year. It’s also impacting, as I mentioned, Q2. So, similar dynamics from a Q2 standalone basis. We will be up modestly Q2 from Q1. But again, some of those same themes will impact our Q2 results. But addressing the second half of your question in terms of kind of things that we are doing to drive different outcomes, as I mentioned previously in our last call, we are investing in activities to help drive productivity improvements, efficiency improvements, yield improvements across our network, and to strengthen overall supply and efficiencies as we interact with kind of our external supplier network as well.
That work is still ongoing. And at the time – as of now, while we’ve identified some improvement areas, we do have to start to implement them and we expect to realize them beginning in 2025, with more impact beyond that as well.
Operator: Thank you. And one moment for our next question. That will come from the line of Matt Taylor with Jefferies. Your line is open.
Matt Taylor: Hi, thanks for taking the question. I wanted to follow up on Boston, and maybe I could just ask how you would frame the worst-case scenario now for investors. And I guess when you do get product back, assuming that happens, do you still think you can regain a lot of the share that you’ve lost?
Lea Knight: So, I’ll take the first part of that. In terms of – and just to give you kind of from a grounding perspective, based on the recall, the returns that we accrued for in 2023, we exited 2023 with Boston essentially in and around kind of low single $1 million, like $1 million or $2 million. So, from a year-on-year perspective, there is – it’s neutralized from a growth perspective. So, in 2024, what you’ll see is organic growth that we’re forecasting of 3.3% to 4.3%, which essentially relates to the performance across the rest of our portfolio. As we take our time to evaluate what step next steps are required to bring SurgiMend and PriMatrix back into the market, one, we are committed to do just that. But from a growth perspective, those – reentry of those products are not impacting our 2024 guidance as of now.
And so, from our perspective, it does represent upside as we reintroduce those products back into the market. I’ll let Jan address from a relaunch perspective what we think the prospects are.
Jan De Witte: Yes, just briefly on that. SurgiMend and PriMatrix are differentiated products. They’re chosen for specific reasons and not easily replaced. So, we believe customer preference will fundamentally remain, and also continue to have access and relationships with those customers through our broader portfolio. So, the elements to at one point get back in the market are still going to be there.
Matt Taylor: Got it. I’m just trying to understand, what is the worst-case scenario? Is it just a further delay? You still have confidence these will be back, but it may be another six months or something? I mean, it’s just difficult with it being so open-ended.
Jan De Witte: Yes, like I said, at this point, we don’t give any further guidance on the Boston return.
Matt Taylor: Okay. All right, thank you very much.
Operator: Thank you. One moment for our next question, and that will come from the line of Ryan Zimmerman with BTIG.
Ryan Zimmerman: Good morning. Thanks for taking the question. I want to – I mean, there’s a lot going on here and there’s a lot I think for investors to interpret in terms of moving parts. Number one, Jan, you were asked about the LCDs, and I appreciate that Omnigraft and PriMatrix are on the list of approved products, but there’s a number of other products that Integra has, including the whole ACell portfolio that were not on the LCD list. And so, what considerations do you have built in for that? Or are they just not used in the chronic wound market? I’m talking like Cytal and the Miraderm products and so forth.
