Good afternoon. And welcome to today’s conference call for Omeros Corporation. At this time, all participants are in listen-only mode. After the company’s remarks, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. Please be advised that today’s call is being recorded at the company’s request and a replay will be available on the company’s website from -- for one week from today. I’ll now turn the call over to Jennifer Williams, Investor Relations for Omeros.

Good afternoon and thank you for joining the call today. I’d like to remind you that some of the statements that will be made on the call today will be forward-looking. These statements are based on management’s beliefs and expectations as of today only and are subject to change. All forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause the company’s actual results to differ materially. Please refer to the Risk Factor section of the company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q, which was filed today with the SEC for a discussion of these risks and uncertainties. Dr. Greg Demopulos, Chairman and CEO of Omeros will take you through a corporate update and then Mike Jacobsen, our Chief Accounting Officer will provide an overview of our first quarter financial results. We have some time reserved for questions after the financial overview. Now, I would like to turn the call over to Dr. Demopulos.

Thank you, Jennifer, and good afternoon, everyone. We appreciate you taking the time to join on the call. We have a lot to report today, so we will begin OMIDRIA, our FDA approved ophthalmology product. Total revenues from the sales of OMIDRIA for the first quarter were $12.3 million. Although, revenues were slightly down compared to the fourth quarter of 2016, first quarter sell-through or unit vials shipped from our wholesalers to our hospital customers and ambulatory surgery centers or ASCs increased 14% over Q4 and year-over-year growth was 107%. There are three major reasons for the difference between our recorded revenues and our sell-through. First, our wholesalers customarily billed increase inventories at year end and as previously reported this was the case at the end of last year for OMIDRIA. This excess inventory then needed to be burned through as wholesaler inventory levels returned to normal in January. Second, while wholesaler inventory levels were high at the end of December, their inventory levels at March 31 were historically low. This first quarter deficit in inventory was then replenished in the first week of the second quarter, with wholesaler purchases in that week alone totaling approximately $2.1 million in net sales. To-date, subsequent second quarter inventories have remained at normal levels. Finally, Q1 represented the first full quarter of operation for our volume discount purchase program for OMIDRIA. As a result, our gross to net deductions increased as expected by approximately 4% over the fourth quarter of last year. So we are pleased with the continued growth in sales that we saw in the first quarter, particularly given the Q1 is historically the weakest quarter of the year for cataract surgery procedures, due to the resetting of insurance deductibles in January and the large number of ophthalmology conferences in January…

Thanks, Greg. As Greg noted, revenues for the first quarter were $12.3 million all from OMIDRIA product sales and our net loss was $15.1 million or $0.34 per share. This includes non-cash expenses of $4.4 million or $0.10 per share. Here are some specifics regarding the first quarter versus the fourth quarter of last year. Our reported revenue for the quarter decreased by 5% or $648,000 from the fourth quarter, while sales of OMIDRIA by our wholesalers to the ASCs and hospitals or sell-through increased by 14%. The difference between reported revenue growth and sell-through unit growth was attributable to the normal reduction of wholesaler inventory levels in early January and the below historic inventory levels held by our wholesalers at the end of the first quarter. This situation was rectified during the first week of April when our wholesalers purchased a net amount of $2.1 million of OMIDRIA, returning inventories to traditional levels and supporting ongoing demand. In addition, but to a lesser extent, the first full quarter of our OMIDRIA volume discount purchase program also contributed to the difference. As expected, the overall amount that we receive per unit of OMIDRIA sold was reduced by approximately 4% from the prior quarter. This is due primarily to Q1 being the first full quarter of our volume discount program. We expect the overall amount will receive for OMIDRIA vials sold will decreased slightly going forward, again due to the expansion of our volume discount program as additional ASCs reach OMIDRIA utilization levels to qualify for the rebates. We expect the overall positive impact of our volume discount rebate program will continue growing. Costs and operating expenses for the first quarter were $25 million. Effectively flat from the $24.8 million we had in the fourth quarter of last year. Specific variations…

Thanks, Mike. Operator, we can go ahead and open the line for calls.

Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our first question is from the line of Liana Moussatos of Wedbush Securities. Your line is open.

Thank you for taking my questions and congratulations on the quarter.

Hi, Liana.

Hi.

Thank you.

The $33.65 million cash, how long that last without the $25 million tranche?

Depends on OMIDRIA revenues, we expect the OMIDRIA revenues to continue to grow. As you know, first quarter historically is the weakest quarter for OMIDRIA. frankly not just OMIDRIA but surgical products in general, given the resetting as I said of annual deductibles and just patients reticence to have surgery in January. I think that clearly sales are continuing to grow despite Q1 being a traditionally weak quarter and Q4 being a strong quarter, our sell-through was over 14% higher in Q1 than in Q4. So I think what we need to do is see what’s happening with revenues and then I can give you better clarity on where that $33.7 million, I believe, takes us. But again, all we see our kind of consistent and continuous signs of the increased adoption in the ophthalmology market and in the ophthalmology field around OMIDRIA and I think that that will continue to bear out.

And could you comment also on reimbursement for OMIDRIA in 2018, how it will change?

Yes. At midnight on 12/31 of this year, we are slated to be packaged, meaning pass-through will expire for us and as currently indicated there is the potential that OMIDRIA will be packaged into the overall reimbursement for cataract surgery. I can tell you that from the day we received pass-through, we turned our attention to achieving long-term reimbursement for OMIDRIA. The efforts there have been consistent, and frankly, I believe we are making significant progress toward achieving that end. We are pursuing two different approaches in parallel, one legislative, one administrative. However, frankly, don’t want to go into the details of that, but I will leave it, as said that, certainly that has our focus and we expect that we will be successful there. Again no promises but certainly I think we are making meaningful headway toward achieving that end.

And my final question is what percent of OMIDRIA sales in Q1 were international?

Very small, Liana. Again, we are just beginning to expand in the Middle Eastern market. As I mentioned, we do plan on expanding the regions and countries internationally, and will keep everyone updated as we accomplish that goal.

Thank you very much.

Thanks, Liana.

Thank you. Our next question is from Steve Brozak of WBB. Your line is open.

Hey, Greg. Good afternoon and congrats on this quarter obviously. And hey, I want to dive in on few quick questions on OMIDRIA and I got OMS721. In looking over the filed documents here and you had mentioned the ANDA? I see that there is an ANDA from Sandoz now. I guess, it’s a form of flattery and that everyone’s interested. But can you expand on that and give as much detail or clarity as you can, because…

Yes. Yes. As much as I know, we just received this notification from Sandoz today. We see this business as usual. As I think I agree with your comment. We take this as complementary. Clearly, Sandoz must think that there is enough room in this market, not only for one generic, but for two. The bottomline as I see it is nothing has changed. Our patents are our patents. Those don’t change. We have very high confidence in those patents and this is just again, as frankly I see it and I think as we see it at Omeros, this is really standard operating procedure for these generics and it’s -- I take that as you said as a form of, perhaps, a high form of flattery.

It actually leads me to the next question, because obviously, we have been tracking and watching all the compounding issues, it’s for a different kind of ophthalmic issue, but the stuff that’s been taking place in Texas, where obviously, there’s been contamination and there has been issues. How do you look at the competitive advantages you’ve got, obviously, versus compounding and can you give us greater clarity on your thoughts there and I want to follow-up with sales as well please?

Sure. First with your question regarding how we see ourselves comparing the compounded products. As you know, Steve, we are the only FDA approved product that does what OMIDRIA does and even compared to compounded products, frankly, OMIDRIA is more effective, so -- significantly so. So you take better clinical outcomes, better clinical efficacy and layer on the potential safety issues of compounded products. Frankly, we don’t see compounded products as truly competitive to OMIDRIA. Now you mentioned the specific events occurring in Texas and Dallas, Texas, they are very unfortunate. We follow these only somewhat remotely. Don’t have all the details, haven’t focused on them. We do understand that these were patients who underwent cataract surgery and a compounded product was used, injected into the eye and what we’ve heard now and what I was hearing, frankly, at ASCRS, which was just this last weekend. This was as you would expect a topic of frequent conversation among ophthalmologists. It sounds like this is a problem that is affecting dozens of patients, I heard, perhaps as many as 60 to 80 patients, who are losing varying degrees of vision, some effectively complete vision loss, believed to be secondary to use of this compounded product during cataract surgery. Obviously, incredibly unfortunate for these patients who are undergoing what they believe is a routine, and frankly, is a routine surgical procedure that is designed and in almost all cases is extremely effective at restoring wonderful eyesight. And to have these patients going and then, as a result of that procedure, have their eyesight diminished or taken is clearly a terrible thing. And frankly, the facility where this happened, we know the head of that group of surgery centers and he is a tremendous person, cares deeply about his patients and he is by all accounts an outstanding surgeon and physician. And it’s just a terribly sad situation, I think, all the way around and that’s about all I know of it at this point.

Yeah. Obviously looking at your distribution and looking at the ophthalmology throughout there, one of the things that we model is your base. Can you tell us about how you’re looking at increasing the base, because obviously when you do that then obviously the increase is everything else gets streamlined, I will ask that question and I’d like to ask questions about OMS721 when you done with that?

Sure. Sure. With respect to increasing the base, we continue to focus on new accounts, Steve. We see this as a pyramid. Certainly we are focused on increasing utilization within accounts that are already using OMIDRIA, expanding it within a given physicians or surgeons surgical practice, but also expanding it within the facility to that physician who is using OMIDRIA, expanding it to his or her colleagues. But at the same time we are looking at adding and continue to add wholly new facilities, be it hospitals, be it ASCs and we are continuing to have had and continue to have good success at adding new accounts. So obviously our discount -- volume discount pricing program is helpful in convincing new facilities to try the drug, because the key here is getting facilities and physicians to try the drug. Once it’s in their hands. Once they use it. Once they use it in enough cases, so that they get the sense that, gee, I’m starting to see something here that’s a lot better than what I’ve been doing. And my days are smoother, my days are faster, my patients are doing better. Once they do that it’s very simple or relatively simple to get them to continue to use. The key is initially having them try. The volume discount pricing program helps to do that. So, yes, we are focused on expanding the base, while also building the penetration within facilities that are existing users of OMIDRIA.

Okay. Now I am going to switch tack and I will hop off line, because I don’t want obviously to monopolize the call. You had mentioned something earlier on the protein area side, because that’s a quantifiable mechanism and when you’re looking at OMS721 and what hurdles are to prove things. How do you see that as being something that you can quantify and that you can get the another approval be a granularity in terms of saying assessing OMS721 efficacy in going out there and showing patient response and I will jump back in the queue after you answer that? Thank you.

Okay. So you are referencing now IgA nephropathy.

Yeah.

Trial on IgA nephropathy and OMS721 with an endpoint of 24-hour urine protein excretion and your question with respect to the objectivity or accessibility of that is extremely high. It’s a laboratory value. You are measuring the amount of protein 24 -- over a 24-hour period that ends up in a patient’s urine. So this from our perspective is a very meaningful endpoint. The data exists. The literature is there that demonstrates that reduction in urine protein levels is tied to improvement in kidney function, very clearly. And when we say improvement in kidney function we are really talking about kind of two measurements, estimated glomerular filtration rate or eGFR and creatinine. Both of those have been shown to be effected by reduction in protein levels. The reason that this is so meaningful and the reason that, frankly, we at Omeros are so excited about this is from our understanding this may be the first time and also from the understanding of our experts in IgA nephropathy work closely with the FDA, this very well may be the first time that they are really considering this as an endpoint, not just for accelerated approval, meaning not as a surrogate endpoint, but as an endpoint for full approval. What we had initially thought was that the FDA would consider potentially proteinuria as an endpoint for accelerated approval, but we will still require eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate or eGFR for full approval. And in fact you have this discussion with the FDA, were they somewhat waved off eGFR for full approval and said that they would assuming our data continue to look like our data look consider proteinuria as an endpoint for full approval was obviously a very pleasant surprise for us and likely removes potentially years of clinical trial duration to full approval. So it is as, I think you’re pointing out a very big deal and I think that it demonstrates, I think, the FDA’s focus on getting treatment to the market for this very serious disease for which there currently is no approved treatment. And I think we so far found the FDA very cooperative. I expect we will continue to find the FDA very cooperative. I know that we look very much forward to working with them very closely to get OMS721 approved quickly for the treatment of patients with IgA nephropathy, who as I said, have no other treatment existing that is approved.

Greg, again, congrats on both the commercial and clinical progress, let me hop back in the queue. Thank you.

Thanks, Steve. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next question is from Elemer Piros of Cantor. Your line is open.

Hello, Greg. How are you?

Hi, Elemer. Good. How are you, Elemer?

Okay. Thank you. So, Greg, if you were to estimate how many hospitals and ASCs you have introduced OMIDRIA to and what percent of the total would that be roughly, so what is your potential target number?

Well, a lot in that question, some will be able to answer Elemer, some I will not. But with respect to where we currently stand overall in penetration of cataract surgery procedures. I think if you look at our Q1 sell-through numbers, we are probably only on the order of 3.5% to 4% of all cataract procedures performed. So, clearly, we are just scratching the surface here for what is ultimately the potential market for OMIDRIA. Now with respect to your question is, where do we want to be, we are focused on taking OMIDRIA to the point of standard-of-use for cataract surgery and we think that that is genuinely an achievable objective. Ophthalmologists in general are conservative. Ophthalmologists in general are slow to adopt. I mean, if you think of Viscoelastics, Viscoelastics I believe in the first several years following the launch of Viscoelastics, the overall penetration in cataract surgery was less than 5%, if you look at Viscoelastics now it’s effectively 100%. There are really very few and again, I’m not an ophthalmologist, but I -- everyone tells me, all the ophthalmologists tell me that you just don’t perform cataract surgery without Viscoelastics. So the idea is, well, slow to adopt, when they do recognize the value of the product and begin to expand the utilization of that product, they become very loyal to that product. And we do expect that that’s what we’re starting to see with OMIDRIA. It was very telling at ASCRS this last weekend. I remember two years ago at ASCRS, when frankly, the initial reaction from a number of the ophthalmologists was almost somewhat hostile, regarding this new product that was coming out and the pricing of that product, that definitely lessened in the last ASCRS meeting last year. This year I left that ASCRS, frankly, highly energized about the product, because of the number of positive comments from the podium, from the panels, the presentations around OMIDRIA. But even more so from the unsolicited comments from physicians, nurses, administrators coming by the OMIDRIA booth and talking about the importance of OMIDRIA to their practice, their expanding use of the product and their belief that what we’re doing is ultimately good for their patients. It was a stark comparison clearly to two years ago, and frankly, a pretty significant difference from even a year ago. So I think that corner is being turned and I think we are on our way to achieving what we want to achieve here.

Okay. Now coming back to the original question, if you are in -- if you have introduced the concept to X number of hospitals and ASCs as of the end of first quarter, where was that number or how -- by what percent did that grow when you look back a year ago?

Yeah. I think that I mentioned that the utilization of the product from December to March it increased -- the number of facilities using that product had increased by 10%.

But you wouldn’t have a year ago number on…

I think I don’t -- I don’t have it at my hands, Elemer. I can -- if -- at some point we can put that information if we choose out there. I can tell you that the growth of new accounts has been pretty consistent. Obviously, as a percentage -- those percentages are going to progressively come down since the number of accounts that are using. The base of accounts continues to expand. So we can’t continue to be generating 75% to 80% new accounts, as we did when we initially launch the product.

Okay.

But there is no question that the growth of the base of users of OMIDRIA continues to grow and continues to grow at a pretty steady and that at an attractive pace.

Yes. Greg, you provided a very good explanation of the first quarter numbers and I personally don’t look at the sequential decline or being stable quarter-on-quarter, but I look at, say, the last four quarters. So the observation there is that revenues grew from 10% to 12.3%. So if you just divide it, it’s about $0.5 million in addition or additional on a quarter-on-quarter basis over a year period. So evening out seasonality, et cetera, et cetera, are you satisfied with that level of growth?

Well, I think, that you are -- with all the respect, Elemer, I think, you are mischaracterizing of it. The 12.3% that you’re pointing to this quarter was, as we said, I think, pretty clearly a function of just lumpiness in inventory. And if you look at the growth what we saw in utilization was again double-digit growth and we’ve seen double-digit growth quarter over quarter over quarter. So, I think, that that is pretty attractive from our perspective. I think that Q2 we will see -- we expect continued growth and we plan on seeing continued growth throughout the year. Do we think that we can get to cash flow positive with OMIDRIA, absolutely. Do we think we will have long-term reimbursement for the product, yes, we do, any guarantees in that, no. But if I had to bet, I bet, yes. So I think that are -- I will change your question a little bit to, are we comfortable with the growth that we are seeing in OMIDRIA. Of course, I’d always like to see it faster. Our team knows that and they would like to see it faster as well. Are we generally comfortable with it, yes, I am and we as a whole are. We love to see it faster, but quarter-over-quarter double-digit growth I think is not -- it is not a terrible arch there. So I think we are going to get there and I think we continue to do so.

Yes. Okay. And just one question on OMS721, please, so the aHUS clinically Phase 3 protocol, has that been rolled into the existing protocol that you had for -- that is listed on clinicaltrials.gov. I think that list like 89 patients, but there are multiple types of patients in that protocol or is this completely separate thing.

I am sorry, Elemer, I lost a part of what you said, could you repeat that?

Yes. So the Phase 3 protocol for OMS721 in the aHUS indication, has that protocol been rolled into the previous Phase 2 protocol that you listed back in 2014 or it’s an entirely new thing and shall we look for it elsewhere?

No. That is a new protocol. The protocol TMA is the Phase 2 program has continued to advance and in that is our stem cell TMA.

Got it. So we should look for it somewhere else on clinicaltrials.gov?

Yes. That should already, in fact, be up on clinicaltrials, if it’s not, it’s simply because our team is running flat out. We’ve gone from one indication now in OMS721 to three indications and one already in Phase 3, two more moving to Phase 3, as you can imagine things are a bit busy.

Yes. Yes. Thank you very much, Greg.

Thanks, Elemer.

Thank you. Our next question is from Jason Kolbert of Maxim. Your line is open.

Hi, Greg. Thank you. I want my questions to really focus on OMS721. On the one hand congratulations on OMIDRIA, I see the importance in the revenues, I see the sequential growth and I see the very clear explanation of wholesaler inventory. But I am surprised by the intense focus on those numbers, because I think, you and I both understand the OMIDRIA while it’s great. It’s a means to an end and clearly OMS721 is one of the add? I think, one of the most important things you’re talking about now is breakthrough designation. So can you talk with me a little bit about what the process was or will be to secure that and how that changes kind of your clinical trial thinking and how the pivotal programs might unfold for the three different indications associated with OMS721, because to me that’s where there could be what I would consider the most significant inflection point in the company? Thanks.

Hi, Jason and thanks for your comments. Yes. Look, as I think, we agree OMS721 is driving revenue that supports the pipeline. I wouldn’t underestimate what those revenues can and what I expect will be, but I think you’re correct in identifying OMS721 as a major program within Omeros. Let me answer specifically your questions, breakthrough designation. This arose most recently when we met with the FDA to speak with them about our Phase 3 program. FDA looked at our data. We presented the IgA nephropathy data to them. I think it’s safe to say that no one is ever seen data that look as compelling in IgA as the data that we have generated in OMS721 and that is not my opinion. That is what I have been told by experts in renal diseases in IgA specifically, and frankly, I think, that was clearly the read by the FDA. So in that meeting they suggested that we submit a breakthrough therapy designation request, which we have already done. So there is a 60-day clock on the review of that application. It needs to go to the department level. Again that’s assuming FDA meets those deadlines sometimes does, sometimes does not. What the importance of breakthrough designation carries with it is the ability to work closely with the FDA on things like the design of the Phase 3 protocol. It’s really ongoing in real time interactions with the FDA. FDA then brings its resources to get products approved as efficiently as possible and that’s what breakthrough therapy designation delivers for the sponsor and for the drug.

Thank you, Greg. And when you take a look at specifically patient size, are there impacts there, I mean, given the safety profile was established at this point, what are they really looking for in terms of establishing efficacy towards approval under the designation with breakthrough status?

The number of patients, it mean sample size for the trial, Jason?

Yeah. Exactly.

Yeah. We are still working through sample size and how we want to structure that study. So we’ve not put out yet numbers with respect to overall sample size for the IgA program, part of that will depend in discussions or on discussions with the FDA about the overall design. We have a pretty good idea about how we’d like to run that study and what we think the design of that study should be. As part of that we have preliminary numbers around sample size. So I think that when we talk with the FDA more we will get there.

I am very excited for you and for patients. Thanks, Greg.

Thanks, Jason. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next question is from Tyler Van Buren of Cowen & Company. Your line is open.

Hi, Greg. Good afternoon. Thanks for taking the questions.

Much like Jason.

Yeah. Much like Jason, I am not very surprise to hear the quarter-over-quarter change in dynamics in Q1 we are seeing it broadly across the industry, I just like. One of major question I want to ask in terms of the commercial strategy and how it’s evolved and for clarification first. Did you state that the centers are seeing 50% penetration in their cataract procedures with OMIDRIA that are signed up, maybe some clarification that would be helpful?

Yeah. What I said there was that at the end of the first quarter 22% of all of the ASCs that use OMIDRIA are administering the drug in over 50% of their total number of cases, cataract surgery cases performed within their respective facilities.

That’s Helpful. And it sounds like you have -- you guys are in a lot of the major hospitals or institutions and obviously, you’re going to continue to grow the base. So you do -- do you see the largest opportunity in more the community-based surgical centers and is that kind of why you’ve shifted to this volume discount pricing program and have you seen any early traction there, just want to get maybe some more specific thoughts there?

Yes. The volume discount pricing program applies to the ASCs and roughly 65% of cataract surgery cases are performed in ASCs, the other 35% being performed in hospitals. We continue to focus on both of those facilities or types or care settings hospitals and ASCs. It’s interesting that in fact the distribution of OMIDRIA used across these two different settings of care for cataract surgery very closely aligned with the national distribution, meaning, 65% ASCs, 35% hospitals, we are seeing the same thing or we’ve achieved that same split with respect to OMIDRIA sales specifically. So I think that answers your question.

That’s helpful. So it seems to be similar in both settings and just a couple or hopefully quick ones on OMS721. Have patients been dosed in the study so far?

We have not put out any updates on our enrollment numbers. We will do that likely at some point. But we continue just to move forward on that program.

Okay. And imagine how quickly the program advancing that you guys are going to be exploring different doses, potentially a different dosing regimen, any updated thoughts on your strategy there?

Well, we have a fixed dosing regimen that we are pursuing in aHUS and we may very well already have dosing regimens for IgA and stem cell also. So I think the key here is we have three programs running, one in Phase 3, two in Phase 2, which are moving to Phase 3. Our -- we are largely agnostic with respect to which indication makes it over the finish line first, Tyler. We are looking to get on the OMS721 on the market as quickly as possible. So if that means that that’s aHUS, great. If that means that somehow IgA and/or stem cell, leapfrog aHUS in terms of the ability to complete the program faster, that’s fine too. So we are going to continue to push and the issue of dosing, we think that we have that pretty well ironed up. So I’m not sure that we are expecting to see additional dosing studies for example on IgA nephropathy.

Okay. That’s helpful.

Four in stem cell -- four in stem cell.

Okay.

And obviously, we are not in aHUS given that that Phase 3 programs already underway.

Okay. That’s great to hear. And with respect to the patients that you are enrolling in aHUS study, you mentioned that there were some ongoing patients, as well as some new patients. Can you maybe just speak to your ability to get new patients on therapy with Soliris available, is there potential rescue protocol built into the study for whatever reason, one patient didn’t respond and ultimately do you view the mix of U.S. versus ex-U.S. sites being 50/50 in the program or is there a requirement for that, just your thoughts on that?

Yeah. Thanks. We are enrolling in the Phase 3 program for aHUS, both patients who have been previously treated on other agents and of course, the other agent there would be Soliris, we are also including patients who are newly diagnosed who have had no treatment. Clearly those newly diagnosed patients are coming from primarily regions where Soliris is either not available or is for some other reason inaccessible by aHUS patients. But I’ll be very clear that there are a good number of those regions and patients available to us. So, specifically, I think, with respect to your question around split between U.S. and ex-U.S. I think that what we’re going to see is a good number of these patients just as we’ve already seen arising out of ex-U.S. regions. Now that is specific to aHUS. That’s going to be different for stem cell and for IgA where there are no approved products anywhere in the world. So I think then we can clearly draw pretty readily from U.S. sites, as well as ex-U.S. sites.

Makes lot of sense. Thanks for the additional thought.

Thank you.

Thank you. And that concludes our Q&A session for today. I’d like to turn the call back over to Greg Demopulos for any further remarks.

Thank you, Operator. And thank you again everyone for taking the time to listen in. Clearly these are exciting times for Omeros. OMIDRIA sales continue to drain traction. Our Phase 3 OMS721 program is underway and as I said, two more are expected to quickly join it. One addiction programs in Phase 2 and the next OMS527 is rapidly advancing to the clinic. We expect that all of these programs and the rest of our pipeline will continue to generate a long line of near-term milestones and we look forward to keeping you updated on those milestones and our achievement of them. As always, we appreciate your continued interest and support. Have a good day. Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today’s conference. This does conclude today’s program. You may all disconnect. Everyone have a great day.