Good morning. My name is Michelle, and I’ll be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the EyePoint Pharmaceuticals Second Quarter 2022 Financial Results and Recent Corporate Developments Conference Call. There’ll be a question-and-answer session to follow at the completion of the prepared remarks. Please be advised that this call is being recorded at the company’s request. I would now like to turn the call over to George Elston, Chief Financial Officer of EyePoint Pharmaceuticals.

Thank you, and thank you all for joining us on today’s conference call to discuss EyePoint Pharmaceuticals second quarter 2022 financial results and recent corporate developments. With me today are; Nancy Lurker, President and Chief Executive Officer; Dr. Jay Duker, Chief Operating Officer; and Scott Jones, Chief Commercial Officer. Nancy will begin with a review of recent corporate updates. Dr. Duker will then discuss clinical plans for EYP-1901, and Scott will comment on our 20 – 2Q 2022 commercial performance. I will close with commentary on the second quarter 2022 financial results. We will then open up the call for your questions. Earlier this morning, we issued a press release detailing our financial results as well as commercial and operational developments. A copy of the release can be found on the Investor Relations tab on the company website, www.eyepointpharma.com. Before we begin our formal comments, I’ll remind you that various remarks we will make today constitute forward-looking statements for the purposes of the Safe Harbor provisions under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These include statements about our future expectations, clinical developments, and regulatory matters and timelines, the potential success of our products and product candidates, financial projections, and our plans and prospects. Actual results may differ materially from those indicated by these forward-looking statements. As a result of various important factors, including those discussed in the Risk Factors section of our most recent annual report on Form 10-K, which is on file with the SEC, and in other filings we may make with the SEC in the future. Any forward-looking statements represent our views as of today only. While we may elect to update these forward-looking statements at some point in the future, we specifically disclaim any obligation to do so even if our views change. Therefore, you should not rely on these forward-looking statements as representing our views as of any date subsequent to today. I’ll now turn the call over to Nancy Lurker, President and Chief Executive Officer of EyePoint Pharmaceuticals.

Thank you, George. Good morning, everyone and thank you for joining us. It’s been an exciting quarter for EyePoint Pharmaceuticals. And we are very proud of the work we’ve done to bring ocular therapies to patients with serious eye disorders, and at the same time, create long-term value for our shareholders. It’s been a busy quarter, and I’ll now review our recent accomplishments. We continue to execute our pipeline with the first patient dosed and we’re very excited about this. Last week, in our Phase 2 DAVIO 2 clinical trial, evaluate an EYP-1901 for wet age-related macular degeneration or wet AMD. As a reminder, EYP-1901 is a combination of the small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor, Vorolanib, and a Bioerodible formulation of our proprietary Durasert technology. We look forward to providing an update on our Phase 2 trial for EYP-1901 in a second indication, non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy, also known as NPDR later this quarter. In July, we presented positive 12-month safety and efficacy data from the Phase 1 DAVIO clinical trial at the American Society of Retina Specialists Annual Meeting. Wet AMD is a serious and potentially devastating eye disorder, accounting for approximately 90% of all AMD-related blindness. Although there are safe and effective FDA approved medications on the market, the treatment paradigm remains a challenging one for patients and physicians. As most patients with wet AMD are treated every month or every other month – requiring frequent trips to the doctor’s office and countless injections over their lifetime. EYP-1901 has a potential to provide the substantial benefit of allowing patients a longer duration between doctor’s offices and visits of up to six months, while maintaining stable visual acuity and macular anatomy. It’s important to highlight that we view EYP-1901 not as a replacement therapy, for existing large molecule anti-VEGF therapy…

Thank you, Nancy and good morning, everyone. Before I begin, I want to reiterate what an incredible quarter this has been for the EyePoint clinical team, as we executed on multiple milestones and we expect to continue to do so as we advance our pipeline. To provide a brief overview of our product candidates and pipeline, as we discussed at our recent Investor Day, EYP-1901 is an investigational sustained release anti-VEGF treatment. We deliver vorolanib, a small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor, which is the active ingredient in EYP-1901, using EyePoint’s – proprietary drug delivery technology, Durasert. Durasert differentiates EYP-1901 from other currently approved anti-VEGF drugs, as this bioerodible insert allows for true sustained-release of the drug with zero-order kinetics, after initial beneficial burst in medication. Vorolanib binds to all VEGF receptors, utilizing a differentiated mechanism of action. Compared to other TKIs, vorolanib features reduced off-target binding, leading to potentially improve safety profile with so far no reported ocular toxicity. In our first indication, wet AMD, EYP-1901 is being studied as a maintenance therapy, following induction therapy with an anti-VEGF therapeutic approach, which we refer to as treat-to-maintain. With regards to wet AMD, our goal is to sustain a majority of wet AMD patients’ treatment interval up to six months or longer after a single injection of EYP-1901, as the largest unmet need in wet AMD landscape is the longevity of anti-VEGF therapy. By providing this sustained delivery treatment, patients and practitioners could potentially have the flexibility to safely reduce the number of visits to their retina specialists through controlled and sustained intravitreal delivery of an anti-VEGF drug. Turning to our most recent data update. We reported positive 12-month results of the EYP-1901 DAVIO Phase 1 clinical trial for the treatment of wet MD at the American Society of Retina Specialists…

Thank you, Jay. We’re excited to report a strong quarter for our commercial business with $11.3 million of net product revenue, an increase of 30% from the second quarter of last year. Our Q2 net product revenue for YUTIQ and DEXYCU was $7.4 million and $3.9 million, respectively. Customer demand was approximately 900 units for YUTIQ and approximately 40% increase from Q1 of 2022 and 14,700 units of DEXYCU consistent with the first quarter. Customer demand for YUTIQ continues to grow as we see positive traction from our focus on retina specialists for posterior segment, inflammation and continued use by uveitis specialists. We hope to see increased demand continue in the quarters to come with further support from our ongoing Phase 4 studies that are underway. Customer demand for DEXYCU was strong and consistent with Q1 of 2022. As our commercial alliance partner, ImprimisRx continues to drive strong demand. In July of 2022, EyePoint announced that the CMS Draft Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment Rule did not extend pass-through status for expiring drugs, thus impacting DEXYCU. If the draft rule is finalized, DEXYCU’s pass-through status will expire on December 31st of 2022. CMS did clarify that they intend to offer ongoing pass-through to non-opioid pain alternatives, and that they will require a pain indication in order for a product to be eligible for continued reimbursement. In light of this recent news, we’re evaluating next steps for potential DEXYCU pain indication. We’re very pleased by the progress we’ve made with our commercial businesses and remain on track for breakeven for the franchise in 2022. I’d like to thank our commercial teams for their dedication to bring our ophthalmic therapies to physicians and patients in need. We look forward to updating you on revenues and demand in the quarters to come. I would now like to turn the call over to George to review the financials. George?

Thank you, Scott. As the financial results for the three months ended June 30th, 2022, were included in the press release issued this morning. My comments today will be focused on a high level review for the quarter. For the second quarter ended June 30th, 2022, total net revenue was $11.6 million compared to $9 million for the quarter ended June 30th, 2021. This includes net product revenue for the second quarter of $11.3 million compared to net product revenue of $8.7 million for the prior year period, an increase of 30%. Net revenue from royalties and collaborations for the second quarter ended June 30th, 2022, totaled $0.3 million consistent with the corresponding period in 2021. Operating expenses for the second quarter ended June 30th, 2022, totaled $30.8 million versus $20 million in the prior year period, primarily driven by an increase in R&D spending, including clinical trial costs for EYP-1901 and investment in personnel across the organization and non-cash stock-based compensation. Non-operating expense net totaled $0.2 million and net loss was $19.4 million or $0.52 per share compared to a net loss of $10 million or $0.35 per share for the prior year period. Cash and investments at June 30th, 2022, totaled $171.2 million compared to $211.6 million at December 31st, 2021. We expect the cash, cash equivalents and investments on hand at June 30th, 2022, and expected net cash inflows from our product sales will enable us to fund our current and planned operations into the second half of 2024. In conclusion, we are pleased with EyePoint’s progress in the second quarter of 2022 and are well capitalized to advance our pipeline to key value inflection point. Thank you all very much for listening this morning. And I now turn the call over to the operator for questions.

Our first question comes from Stacy Ku with Cowen. Your line is open.

Thanks so much for taking our questions and congratulations on the progress. The – the first question is do you plan – plan to provide quarterly enrollment updates for your Phase 2 DAVIO 2 trial? So I believe you’ve got it to six months. So, just some color around kind of the gating of enrollment, and maybe you could speak to the level of physician awareness and engagement so far as you – as you initiate the sites. Thanks.

Yeah. The – hi, thank you for that, Stacy. No, we have not ever done that for DAVIO 1, we don’t plan to for DAVIO 2. As you know, these clinical trial enrollments can be like sine waves and so you can get you know a big bolus come in, and then a valley and it – it just doesn’t give much insights, I think to investors. So we obviously will issue a press release when we have complete enrollment. But that’s always been our target. And I’m going to actually have Dr. Jay Duker comment on just sort of how the trials going so far.

Yeah. So the physician engagement is very high. We had well over 100 sites interested in being participating in the study. I think at this point, the – the TKI in the delivery system that we feature is resonating with physicians. And I think our Phase 1 clinical trial data has been very well received. So I think there’s a lot of excitement out there in the retina community about the potential for EYP-1901.

Okay, perfect. And so two more questions on – on the DAVIO 2. First, what are the powering assumptions versus Eylea arm? So 1901 versus Eylea to achieve non-inferiority? And the second question on DAVIO 2. How close do you expect the design will be with pivotal trials? I know, at the Investor Day, we talked about the potential six months retreatment for Phase 3, so any additional details would be appreciated. Thank you so much.

So we haven’t publicly announced this statistics around DAVIO 2. At this point, they’re descriptive only, given the end of the study, the study you know is not necessarily powered to a high enough level to be confident to that 95% level. You know, the – the results of the statistics, again, are descriptive. The reinjection issue, again, at this point, there is no point injection to the DAVIO 2 trial, we do look to study that in patients prior to the pivotal trial. And we still anticipate that in our wet AMD pivotal trials, the pace of reinjection will be every six months, that’s the anticipated testing. We had a very productive Type C meeting with the FDA several months ago. And, at that meeting, we asked some very specific questions around the structure of the pivotal trials. So we have a pretty good idea of what the pivotal trials might look like. But in saying that, one of the physicians who do a Phase 2 trial is to inform your pivotals around dosing and other things. And so, we do expect to learn things from DAVIO 2 that certainly may alter the structure of the pivotal trials now. But I think they’re comfortable and the FDA is comfortable with the outline of what the pivotal trials might look like.

Yeah, let me just add to that. I want to make sure that we’re very clear on this. We have not designed this to be a pivotal trial, nor even have the chance of hitting a statistical to get endpoint. Our goal is to understand that of the dosing, what dose we take in a Phase 3, as well as entry criteria, et cetera, and what types of patients perform best. Our goal is to make sure that we get this study done ASAP, and not have a large number of patients so that we can potentially hit pivotal. We really do need to learn just a few things to make sure we have optimal success in Phase 3. So we have no intentions of releasing statistics around this, because it would be meaningless.

Okay, that’s super helpful. Thank you so much.

The next question comes from Eddie Hickman with Guggenheim Partners. Your line is open.

Good morning, and thanks for taking the question. This is Eddie on for Yatin this morning. A question on 1901. For the – the diabetic retinopathy study, what have you done to make you choose those 2 and 3 milligram doses for the study? And then for that study, since the endpoints are a bit different, how are you going to handle the rescue criteria as compared to the DAVIO study? And then just quickly on DEX, when will you know about that CMS pass-through decision and how long would that extension be if it does get approved? Thanks.

Hi, this is Jay. Let me start with the – the first two questions and thank you very much for – for discussing the PAVIO trial. First of all, we haven’t found the maximally tolerated dose for EYP-1901 and either any animal studies or humans. And – and since we don’t know what doses will be effective, we elected to go with the two highest doses that we used in DAVIO for the NPDR trial. So it’s certainly possible that a lower dose will be just as effective. But we do hope to learn something about dosing from the PAVIO trial. There is no rescue criteria in a diabetic retinopathy study, the control group is observation. In the real world, although there are labels for two anti-VEGFs for treatment of moderate-to-severe NPDR. We believe that only 2% to 3% of patients in the real world that are actually getting treated with anti-VEGFs and therefore, using inactive control of sham injection, we believe is appropriate for this indication. And therefore, rescue criteria would only really be applied to any patient who progress to center-involving macular edema, non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy.

Yeah, I’ll make one comment and then I’ll have Scott on the pass-through with DEXYCU. But remember, the final rules come out in November. So that’s when we would expect to know. But Scott, you want to add anything further on, some color around?

Sure. So when we talked about pass-through, we’re actually talking about two separate opportunities for pass-through extension, one is related to extending the public health emergency, which as we saw in 2022, allow for extension to our tolling period, which is the period which data is collected on the utilization of like outside of the bundle. So that would be potentially in the final rule, which would be in November. The second part of the pass-through related to the non-opioid pain indication or pain-sparing products, excuse me – non-opioid-sparing products related to pain. And that – there’s certainly that we saw draft rules in the ‘22 rule and in the ‘23 proposed rule. We do believe there will be a finalization of those rules in the final rule, which comes out again in early November.

Thank you.

Our next question comes from Jennifer Kim with Cantor. Your line is open.

Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking my question. I have two here. The first is just a clarification on how we should think about reinjection data in the pivotal for wet AMD? I think at the Investor Day you said, you would expect a readout nine months after the last injection, and then you anticipate reinjection would – would happen at six months. So does that mean data on the reinjected dose would only go out to three months? And then my second question is just on the pain indication of DEXYCU. If you go forward with exploring that, what would the anticipated cost and I guess, timing around that be? Thanks.

Hey, Jennifer, it’s Jay again, thanks for the questions. And I’ll take the first part. Yeah your summary of the pivotal structure is correct, the initial efficacy readout would be approximately nine months after the initial dose of EYP-1901. At about six months after that initial , we would anticipate giving a second dose, that works. Most wet AMD studies at this point are approximately one year efficacy trial and two years safety trial. And we do anticipate taking the pivotal for a just for safety, that which also means that we would plan on reinjecting a total of times within that study.

But the readout would be before two years.

Yes. The efficacy readout would be at approximately one year after the initiation of the study as is currently structured or planned.

Jennifer, on DEXYCU. So, number one, we’ve not made any decision, I want to be clear on that. Number two, the cost of the studies would be in the mid-teens. But there are various options if we decide to go forward with it. That we would look at for some potential non-dilutive ways to access that capital. We want to be careful that we – we do not expect in any way that if we go forward we would impact our cash runway. And then finally, obviously, you can imagine has been very clear that they want to make sure that they have non-opioid pain products available. And they gave extended, if you want to call it almost permanent pass-through for some of these drugs that have a pain indication. So they’ve been very you get a pain indication, you’re going to get extended pass-through for – permanently through. So the IRR, as you can imagine, is quite robust. And the risk of doing a pain indication for dexamethasone is relatively low, because dexamethasone is a known pain reliever. So we feel confident that if we decide to go forward, our odds of achieving a successful outcome are quite high. Nevertheless, no decisions have been made, we’re going to be very thoughtful about how we approach this. This is not our core asset and we recognize that and our goal is to make sure that we have the capital and the runway to execute on our EYP-1901 program.

Okay, great. Thanks. Actually, if I could sneak one more question. You’ve also talked about exploring other molecules which are sort of like complement inhibitors. Are there other molecules that you’re also exploring? And also, what are you looking for in the – in a partner to take this forward? Thanks.

So, yes, there are other molecules that we are looking at. And the beauty about Durasert is, is that you can, as we’ve said before, put many small molecules in and possibly up to some small peptides. So there’s a number of opportunities we’d like to go after assets that have proof-of-concept. Because remember, we’re not a research-driven company. We are a drug delivery and development stage company, we don’t really want to take brand new mechanism of action risk on APIs. I’m going to actually have Jay comment further on. Any other specifics that we find interesting, please note as well, we have in licensed in the Tie2 activators. And we have both – we have two molecules associated with that a small molecule and a bispecific. So clearly, that is one pathway that we are potentially exploring.

Just to add a little more color. We have a very active VD outreach right now. And we are looking to partner with companies who have the release problem, let’s call it, that they have a molecule that has a differentiated or proven MoA, but they have a short life in the eye or they are giving it systemically and have systemic side effects. That’s kind of the perfect partner for us in Durasert. There are certain areas of unmet need that we’re really interested in, you mentioned complement, and I would just even extend that to drive macular degeneration in general. Neuroprotection is another area that we’re actively interested in. And there were several other smaller niche areas of the posterior segment of the eye diseases that we’re ongoing – have ongoing talks with other potential partners to develop other molecules that have been derisked through other programs.

All right, great. Thanks so much, guys.

Our next question comes from Yale Jen with Laidlaw. Your line is open.

Good morning, and thanks for taking the questions. My first question is about the DAVIO 2 study that I remember you guys talking about earlier that you might enrich some patients that could have been better managed by the current VEGF therapies. Any other color you can share on this radar?

Sure, that’s an excellent question. And I – I think perhaps I’m not sure, enriching is quite the right word. We looked very carefully at the patients who enrolled in the Phase 1 DAVIO trial, who did well with EYP-1901 versus those in whom the benefit of EYP-1901 was not as apparent. And, what was clear from that evaluation is that, patients who were failing standard-of-care, in other words, were getting an Eylea or Lucentis injection every four or five or six weeks, but still had a lot of fluid or increasing fluid or decreasing vision despite that frequency of standard-of-care injections, it didn’t appear that EYP-1901 offered a lot of benefit to those patients. And therefore, the inclusion-exclusion criteria for DAVIO 2 try to eliminate the best we could, the patients were not doing well on standard-of-care. So, by doing that, we hope that the benefit of EYP-1901 is more apparent in DAVIO 2 than it was in DAVIO 1.

Okay, great. That’s very helpful. And in terms of DAVIO 2 and PAVIO, are there many clinical sites that you anticipate to be overlapping? Or there will be a – or that’s not the case?

You know that’s a really good question. And – and off the top of my head, I don’t know the answer. I mean, I’ve seen both lists. And so, you think I could probably put that together. But – but suffice it to say, that they are different diseases all treated by retinal specialists. But there’s a geographic diversity, I would say, with respect to these diseases. There are certain patient populations in areas of the country where macular degeneration is more common, in other areas where the population isn’t as elderly and may have more incidence of diabetes. So I fully expect that there’s going to be some overlap, but not necessarily a 100%.

Okay, great. That’s helpful. And maybe the last question here is that, given the YUTIQ sales and the usage seems – appears to be pretty good this quarter. What types of outlook you guys may anticipate or, for – just for the remaining of the year? And thanks.

Yeah. Thanks for the question and thanks for your comments relative to YUTIQ. Obviously we’re not providing any additional guidance towards the sales for the remainder of the year. We are happy that the customer demand remained strong. We continue to have really good outlook from the customers and really good feedback. So you know, we – we are happy with the performance of the product and with the Salesforce.

Okay, great. That’s very helpful. And again, thanks a lot.

Thank you, Yale.

Our next question comes from Yi Chen with H.C. Wainwright. Your line is open.

Hi, thank you for taking my question. So in the DAVIO trial, within those 53% of eyes that do not require the supplemental anti-VEGF up to six months and 35% up to 12 years, do they share any similar characteristics within those patients that could help you grow – better and grow the patients for DAVIO 2 trial?

So I would say there was some disparity in the patient’s length of time that they had disease and their OCT appearance at enrollment. But one of the characteristics that they all had was a positive response to standard-of-care anti-VEGF. And by positive, I don’t – I don’t mean just a little reduction in fluid, that these people were generally under good control with the standard-of-care anti-VEGF. Now, retina specialists have a hard time defining good control. Some of us would say those that getting monthly injections and are completely dry with good vision or under good control despite the frequency of injection. And so I would include patients in that category. Patients who did not have a lot of fluid, it had good vision, but require frequent injections. And I think that that’s a – a niche that we really hope EYP-1901 will fill patients that are well treated, but require frequent injections.

And what would be the minimum of prior injections or minimum length of treatments before getting enrolled into the DAVIO trial – DAVIO 2 trial?

So the – one of the inclusion criteria is the diagnosis of wet AMD has been made less than nine months prior to screening. And the patients have had to have a minimum of two standard-of-care anti-VEGFs. And according to the enrolling investigator, they’ve had to show the positive response to those injections.

Got it. Thank you.

Our next question comes from with Chardan. Your line is open.

Hi, good morning. Thank you for taking the question. One on the injection device. I believe at the Analyst Day you mentioned that you were fine-tuning or finalizing the specs for the injection device so that it can reliably deliver the – the implant. Just wanted to ask what the status of that is, and what are the remaining regulatory requirements are?

So the status is the project is moving along very nicely. We believe we’ve developed a state-of-the-art injection system that will have the inserts preloaded with the device is designed to handle both YUTIQ and EYP-1901. And we’re on track to have that. We hope tested in humans in the very near future. The regulatory part is, as you may know, the FDA has – has made things a little more complicated, and that, we’re now considered a drug device combination. However, with respect to EYP-1901, we anticipated that to be the case from the start. And there – therefore, we have developed from the initial start of EYP-1901 as a drug device combination along with the new injector, we’re doing all the regulatory things that will need to get done to make sure that that’s met. I believe that – that regulatory issues also exist within the EMA. And therefore, we are you know attuned to making sure that this – these regulatory requirements are met. With respect to YUTIQ, because YUTIQ is a prior approved product. When we do change the injection system, we will have to supply the FDA with background in that, including you know details around what the injection system development program consists of. Once again, I think we’re – as a company, we’re right on that and we don’t anticipate that that aspect will slow down the program at all.

To add, we are – are filing robust patents around this device, it will be proprietary.

Got it, thank you. Very helpful. And I have one big picture question to – for – to Jay. In terms of your confidence for EYP-1901 in DME and how does the confidence from the mechanistic standpoint compared – compares and contrasts with NPDR?

So, every other product that’s an anti-VEGF that’s worked in one indication has worked in all indications. I think that that you know, suggests that for vorolanib as it’s released Durasert should be the same. We think that the real advantages in a disease like NPDR, in which clearly anti-VEGFs have a positive role in the disease course, but really not getting them because of the frequency of injection. And I’d expand that the DME, while there is certainly evidence that VEGF is not the only mediator in diabetic macular edema. Early on in the disease, it’s primarily felt to be a VEGF-mediated disease. We also think that it’s possible that vorolanib may have some alternative benefits to patients, other than just with anti-VEGF benefits. Because it blocks VEGF receptor 1, there’s probably some type of inflammatory benefits. And as we disclosed that in Investor Day, we just recently, some pretty strong preclinical evidence in a retinal detachment model that vorolanib actually has neuroprotection receptors. So those other potential measures of action may also be beneficial in diabetes, both diabetic macular edema and diabetic retinopathy. And again, the zero-order kinetics release combined with the ability to lengthen the cycle of injection should have a benefit to .

Yeah, all right. Thank you very much.

Our next question comes from with B. Riley. Your line is open.

Thank you for taking our question. Just one question from us. Can you clarify for DAVIO 2 12-month trial? Is there a follow-up period beyond the 12-month to look into safety and overall function? Thank you.

Excellent question, thanks for bringing that up. At present, there’s not a plan to extend the study beyond 12 months. I think potentially that’s something we may consider. But, again, we don’t plan on doing anything that’s going to negatively impact the start of the pivotal trial .

Yeah, got it. Thank you.

And I’m showing no further questions in the queue at this time. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today’s conference. This does conclude your program and you may now disconnect. Everyone have a great day.