Paul Badawi: Yeah, sure. Thanks, Tom. A couple considerations, again, it completed enrollment in August, September timeframe. The readout or the randomization TearCare versus Restasis read out primary endpoints, that’ll be late Q2, so maybe summer 2023, we’ll have the data analyzed and ready for that readout. And then beyond that, assuming €“ knock on wood assuming success, we would begin €“ we want to publish the data, we’ll try to publish certainly the 6-month data. And then we continue €“ the study is not over at that point, it will continue for 2 years. There’s another read out at 2 years. The two goals of the study just to remind everybody: one, we want to assess how TearCare compares to Restasis at 6 months on signs and symptoms; and then the second goal of this study is to show durability of treatment effects.
That’s why we’re running a 2-year trial with that’s an eternity in the world of dry eye clinical trials. But again, this study was informed by payors themselves. We spoke to a number of payor medical directors before we designed and began executing this study, and those were the two things they needed to see. They need to see how does the interventional procedure for MGD compared to costly daily market leading prescription Rx? And number two, how long does TearCare last? What is the durability of treatment effect, because payors are going to want to decide if we’re covering this? How many treatments per year are we paying for it? And based on the 1,000s and 1,000s of cases we’ve done successfully commercially today in the cash pay world. We typically see one to two treatments in the first year and then a single treatment for maintenance every year thereafter.
So we would €“ Tom, it’s a long answer those. Those are the goals of the study. We would begin having, hopefully again assuming success, very healthy discussions with payors with that 6-month data. We’re not going to wait for the 2-year endpoint in late 2024. We’re going to go with that 6-month endpoint and talk to as many payors as we can. And, I think, hopefully we’ll be able to pull in some payor wins and advances of that 2-year 2024 final readout.
Thomas Stephan: Perfect. Thanks, Paul.
Paul Badawi: Thanks.
Operator: Thank you. Our next question will come from Craig Bijou of Bank of America. Your line is open.
Craig Bijou: Good afternoon, guys. Thanks for squeezing me in here. Just one for me. I believe, you guys said that you’re seeing uplift on standalone utilization in certain markets, and maybe you bring those best practices to other markets. I was hoping you can expand a little bit and maybe on the characteristics of that market is there anything that’s common that you’re seeing, and why standalone is seeing a little bit more uptick? And then maybe just a little bit more color on how you plan to kind of take those best practices and bring them to your other markets?
Paul Badawi: Craig, I’ll talk about the GCC is what we’ve seen. We’ve seen the most successful GCC, historically, the way we were organized prior to our re-org, the GCCs were more or less on an independent team with a mission to go and educate, educate our army surgeons, educate the referring provider community, et cetera. But they were operating more independently. What we saw, again, we’re learning very quickly, we’re paying close attention to what’s working. And then we’re trying to institutionalize as best practices, we’re doing that I think very well, right now. We saw that the GCCs, who are working most closely with the local surgical sale , that they were able to effect faster, better, higher quality education of the entire surgical ecosystem, right, that surgical rep had already cultivated, and with the GCC and the rep working closely together.
