Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the 2016 Quarter Three pSivida Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we will conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions follow at that time. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the call over to your host Ms. Lori Freedman, Vice President of Corporate Affairs. Ms. Freedman, you may begin.

Thank you, Siri. Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us. Earlier this afternoon, we released our third quarter financial results for fiscal 2016. A copy of the release is available in the Investor section of our website at www.psivida.com. On the call with me today are Dr. Paul Ashton, President and Chief Executive Officer; and Len Ross, Vice President of Finance. Before I hand the call over to Paul, I need to remind everyone that some of our prepared remarks are, and answers to your questions maybe, forward-looking in nature. Forward-looking statements are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties. All statements other than statements of historical facts are forward-looking statements and we cannot guarantee that the results and other expectations expressed, anticipated or implied will be realized. Actual results could differ materially from those anticipated, estimated or projected in the forward-looking statements. For a more detailed discussion of risk factors that could impact our future results and financial condition, I refer you to our filings with the SEC, including our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2015. We undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statements in order to reflect events or circumstances that may arise after this conference call. With that, I’d like to turn the call over to Paul.

Great. Thank you, Lori, and good afternoon, everyone, as we discuss the results for our fiscal 2016 third quarter. This is another good quarter for us. Continued progress of our lead product candidate Medidur for posterior uveitis, completion of the IND-enabling data for our sustained release products for severe knee osteoarthritis, and continuing advances in our pre-clinical studies for a potential AMD product highlighted our quarter. So let’s move on to the details. We earlier reported that our first Phase 3 clinical trials showed high statistical significance in achieving its primary endpoints of prevention of recurrence of posterior uveitis at six months. Using the intent to treat analysis, so called ITT, only 18% of Medidur treated eyes experienced the recurrence by six months, compared to 79% of control eyes, resulting in a p-value of less than 0.0000001. We now have also completed a protocol analysis of the data in that trial. And the trial again met its prime endpoints with high statistical significance. The protocol recurrence rates showed only 3% of Medidur treated eye experienced a recurrence by six months versus 50% of control eyes. This was also highly statistically significant with a p-value of less than 0.00001. Now, the difference between the two analysis is in how patients are treated who do not complete the trial within the protocol. An intent-to-treat analysis compares all patients originally allocated after randomization. If a patient received a treatment that was outside the protocol such as a systemic steroid therapy for whatever reason or a treatment for posterior uveitis that didn’t reach the level necessary to count as a recurrence, then an ITT recurrence is imputed. By contrast, a protocol analysis is a comparison that includes only those patients who completed the treatment within protocol and recurrences are not imputed. While the FDA…

Thank you, Paul, and good afternoon everyone. I’ll briefly review our third quarter fiscal 2016 results, we reported earlier today, starting with our financial position. As Paul noted, at March 31, 2016, we had cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities of $33.3 million, compared to $21.1 million at the end of the prior quarter. The current quarter increase reflected $16.5 million of net proceeds from our January 2016 underwritten public offering, offset by approximately $4.3 million of cash used from operations during the quarter. We believe our capital resources at quarter-end gathered with the cash we expect to receive under our collaboration agreements. Our sufficient to fund our current and planned operations into the fourth quarter of calendar year 2017, without taking into account any potential future amounts that we may receive under our ILUVIEN collaboration agreement. We currently expect net cash used in operating activities during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2016, to be in the range of $5 million to $5.5 million, up from the $4.3 million in the third quarter. As a result, cash used from operations should average approximately $5 million per quarter for the second half of fiscal 2016, as referenced in last quarter’s call. We continue to expect cash used from operations to be variable quarter-to-quarter in fiscal 2017, particularly, with respect to the timing and amounts of CRO payments for the Medidur Phase 3 trial. Turning now to our third quarter fiscal 2016 results. Revenues totaled $324,000 for the quarter ended March 2016, compared to $328,000 for last year’s quarter, a $56,000 increase in Retisert royalty income was offset by lower collaborative and research revenue. Research and development expense totaled $3.1 million in the fiscal 2016 third quarter, a decrease of $265,000 or 8%, compared to $3.3 million in the prior year period.…

Great. Thanks, Len. So to sum up, it was a good quarter. Key points are, the protocol analysis of our first Phase 3 study of Medidur for posterior uveitis, like the ITT analysis, showed the trial achieved its primary efficacy endpoints with high statistical significance. Safety data continued to be positive. Medidur received Orphan designation in Europe, and as a result we now intend to file for European approval under the centralized procedure around the end of 2016. The second trial is approximately 60% enrolled. And we anticipate being able to file an NDA based on the result of the two trials around mid-2017. We expect the investigator-sponsored study of our Durasert implant for severe knee osteoarthritis to begin enrolling this summer following submission to the FDA, by the investigator, of the requested stability data for the implants. We’re looking both Tethadur and Durasert programs continued on pace. And with $33 million in cash at the end of March, our cash position is solid. At this time, we’d be happy to take your questions. Operator, would you please initiate the Q&A portion of the call?

Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Matt Kaplan of Ladenburg Thalmann.

Hey, Paul. Congrats on the progress.

Thanks, Matt.

Can you give us a little bit of an update in terms of the - you gave us some update with the Phase 3 data for the first trial - can you give us a little bit more sense in terms of the 12 months endpoint, when we could see data from the first Phase 3 analyzed…?

That will be this summer.

This summer?

Yes. It would be about six months - that would be six months data.

Very good, and then in terms of the second Phase 3, you mentioned that you’re about 60% enrolled. When do you think you could complete enrollment in that study and could we see, I guess, six months after that see the completion of study and data.

Yes. So that should be enrolled some time in Q3. If we do well it’d be at the beginning calendar Q3. If we do well in the beginning and if we are a little bit slower, it will be towards the end. But we’re expecting some time in that three month window.

Very good, now, that’s helpful. And what other work do you need to complete besides the second Phase 3 to put yourself in position to file the NDA?

There is also an inserter study ongoing, but we’re looking at the new 27-gauge inserter. Now, that’s a 30-patient study and it’s about half enrolled. This is enrolled in pretty quick. So we haven’t really been talking a lot about this, because it’s not going to be very limiting in anyway.

Okay. And what do you have to show on that study?

WE have to show that the 27-gauge, it’s an ease-of-use study. So we have to show them 27-gauge is as easy or easier to use, than the larger 25-gauge. Yes, it’s inadequacy of the instructions and all of those kinds of things.

Yes. So it’s a user study kind of…

Absolutely.

Great, and then in terms of the - your interaction with the FDA, I guess, the conclusion was that the second study would be necessary for filing. Can you give us any detail around that discussion?

Well, we had our meeting with the FDA just under a month ago and when we get the final minutes of the meeting, I will be able to more adequately know what we decided. But based on it, I see no reason to move from the original plan of providing them with two Phase 3 trials.

Okay. Very good, and then last question before I jump into the queue. In terms of your pipeline, can you give us some milestones to expect for the remainder of 2016, with respect to, I guess, the preclinical and the OA and the knee…?

The OA should begin enrolling sometime in this summer. Great, I will hedge on how long it will take to enroll. The other program that we are very excited about is the program in wet AMD. Initial studies in a preclinical model indicated that this is a long-term bioerodible implant. Initial data indicated that we are showing similar efficacy of Eylea, in this particular preclinical model. We are repeating a similar study now in a different animal model and then we’d be looking to start the IND-enabling tox studies later this year.

Great. And then, the Tethadur?

Tethadur is progressing. It’s a - as people who follow the company are aware, it takes a long and sometimes painful process. We have good stability data through to a point. We just want to make the stability data last on just a little bit longer. While we’re looking at this product, we’re not trying to see can we make something that’s significantly better than the six or eight weeks - injection every six or eight weeks maybe they’re currently used. We’re looking can we make this thing to be significantly better than what is likely going to be out there in five-year’s time. That will probably enhance a little bit, yes.

And, I guess, last question in terms of - now that you have orphan drug designation in Europe, what are your plans in terms of the European commercial development after approval there?

Well, we are evaluating - as I said on the call, we’re evaluating all of the options.

All right.

So until we completed the analysis it would be premature to say what we are going to do, but the options are fairly extended, right. You can go your own as some people like to do or you can look for partners like, companies like Genentech and Regeneron and such.

Sounds good. Well, congrats again.

Thanks, Matt.

Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from Suraj Kalia from Northland Securities.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Hi, Suraj.

Paul, so forgive me, just hoping in between calls, maybe you’ve already mentioned this. Specifically on the wet AMD, Paul, if I heard your commentary, you said you all were seeing similar efficacy as Eylea. Am I to interpret that the VEGF trap you all are actually using as an agent is pretty much Eylea or, I guess, I’m just trying to understand why Eylea is the key bogie you like using?

Well, in an animal you’re going to use as a positive control, you can use as in Eylea or Lucentis or Avastin. And we just happen to choose Eylea. Then I think for the purposes of these models are somewhat approximate anyway, one could theoretically use Lucentis or Avastin, I guess.

So there is, Paul - there is no limitation on the molecular size that is limiting you all anyway correct?

No, no. I just want to make clear. We are looking at a bioerodible implant releasing a small molecule, a small growth molecule. And the positive control that we’re using is, is that giving us the same efficacy in this model as, say, an injection of Eylea.

Okay. And understood, but it is a VEGF trap, the molecule is - it’s some sort of a VEGF trap, correct?

Yes. It’s a small molecule inhibiting VEGF. It is a small molecule inhibiting VEGF.

Okay. And on the osteoarthritis product, Paul, again you all might have mentioned this, so forgive me if this is a redundant question. Paul, I mean, you guys have followed the recent data releases from Carbylan, Flexion, Anika, and I guess where I’m headed is how are - when you look at the totality of results that are coming out of these studies, various Phase 3, Phase 2 so on and so forth, how is that guiding your strategy on the Durasert OA product, love to get some color there?

Yes, well, I think the relatively short-time implants that you’re talking about are suspension or whatever, there is going to be some pros and cons to these. I think for a relatively early stage disease that may be okay. For those types of products you need to be looking at how do they differentiate from, say, an injection of a suspension of triamcinolone acetonide, which is also is going to have a relatively short duration. And the other problem is that with an injection of a suspension triamcinolone in a gel or a microsphere releasing dexamethasone or whatever it might be, the physics of it are that you’re going to achieve some logarithmic results. So you’re going to have quite a lot of drug release initially that’s going to rapidly taper off. And there are certain cons to that. And the con is one that you are going to have a shorter duration. And the other con is that, storage can have very significant effect in the joint. So if you a pretty high dose initially, repeatedly you need to be careful about what kind of toxicity you might see on the thumb [ph]. And we’ll be anticipating using the same amount that’s currently used for single injection but having it last for and release of a continuous low level for a much longer period of time.

Got it. And finally, Paul, again you might have mentioned this already, the orphan status in Europe, obviously that was a welcome news. Can you walk us through the progression, filing a regulatory approval I believe end 2016, then the reimbursement, whether NUB or whatever - if you can just kind of walk us through how you see this progression. Thank you for taking my questions.

Yes, so we anticipate filing the MAA at the end of - around the end of 2016, what would anticipate a review of approximately one year, and towards the end of that time we’ll be starting negotiations with the various payers in the different countries. And obviously orphan drug designation is going to boil that process to some degree. So I believe - thank you so much for your questions. Do we have any more questions?

I’m showing no further questions at this time. I’ll turn the call back over to you, Dr. Ashton.

Great, well, I’d like to thank you all for joining us today. And I look forward to speaking with you again next quarter. Of course, in the meantime if there are any additional questions feel free to contact us. Thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today’s conference. Thank you for your participation and have a wonderful day. You may all disconnect.