Charles Sherwood
Management
Well, I have three comments. The first one is the FDA is the FDA. Two, I don’t mean to make light of this I am not doing that, Jim. The second one is yes, we had a lot of delays with Monovisc and we worked it, we worked it, worked it, but we prevailed at the end. We came out, got the product approved, that’s my second comment. The third comment is we are just going to have to – we had anticipated maybe that this was so obvious that we could just go right to the CDRH guys, device guys and they would take the PMA and they would review. And we have been in dialog with them and very informally with some of the people in OCP and its now becoming clear that we are going to have to file a formal designation. We didn’t think that was going to be the case. So we will have the meeting to settle, adopt, we have a bunch of data, we have a bunch of clinicians who have used the product, who are very supportive. There is a lot of information that we can bring to that meeting that probably we could get impact into a very tidy request for designation. Then we will have to follow that most likely with our request, official request for designation. I think it’s possible, but highly unlikely that it was a good meeting. Okay. We will – this is okay, send it to the device people, so that’s probably not going to happen. We still believe we have a good case for the device designation, but if that doesn’t happen, we have got a ton of data, so I think that we would – will suffer a year delay I am thinking by the time we talk with drug people, make them happy, do all that. I don’t think that’s going to happen, but I don’t think this is going to carry on for years, that’s not going to happen. So we have to remember too and I keep bringing this, but people keep forgetting this. We had a very, very successful highly conclusive statistically relevant Phase 3 trial. So we have that on our side. This was very powerful and worked very, very well in the trial. So that’s got to carry a lot of weight. The Monovisc was we had – there were some issues with that trial and we ended up getting it approved as non-inferiority to worth of it’s not as the superiority because of the strength of the placebo. In this trial, placebo was also strong, but Cingal was off the charts in terms of effectiveness. So we have got that going forward, so I don’t think this is going to carry on for a long, long time. Any questions?