Could you tell me a little bit about what was the purpose of that trial? And then we'll get into what did you find from that trial.

Well, when we devised the trial and ultimately funded by the National Eye Institute, we wanted to look at three questions.

The, the first question, which drove the sample size, uh, and how large the trial was, was to look at the effect of graft success at one year when we randomized two-thirds of the patients receiving donors without diabetes and one-third with diabetes for a DMEK transplants.

And what we found with that study at one year was that there was no difference in graft success between the two groups.

It was 96% success rate with the patients receiving donors without diabetes and, uh, 97% even with the, with diabetes.

The second question also looked then at the same group of patients looking at cell loss at one year.

And again, remarkably, there was no difference in cell loss, 28% in both groups.

So was this trial done because people were still worried in the back of their mind that maybe if you have severe diabetes, you don't wanna use those? What, what was the impetus for doing this additional study? Were people still worried in the back of their mind that maybe having very severe diabetes would be a donor that you don't wanna use just because you showed overall, on average, having diabetes, it's okay, you can still use those corneas as donors?

Could you tell me a little bit about what was the purpose of that trial? And then we'll get into what did you find from that trial.

Well, when we devised the trial and ul- ultimately funded by the National Eye Institute, we wanted to look at three questions.

The, the first question, which drove the sample size, uh, and how large the trial was, was to look at the effect of graft success at one year when we randomized two-thirds of the patients receiving donors without diabetes and one-third with diabetes for a DMEK transplants.

And what we found with that study at one year was that there was no difference in graft success between the two groups.

It was 96% success rate with the patients receiving donors without diabetes and, uh, 97% even with the, with diabetes.

The second question also looked then at the same group of patients looking at cell loss at one year.

And again, remarkably, there was no difference in cell loss, 28% in both groups.

So was this trial done because people were still worried in the back of their mind that maybe if you have severe diabetes, you don't wanna use those? What, what was the impetus for doing this additional study? Were people still worried in the back of their mind that maybe having very severe diabetes would be a donor that you don't wanna use, just because you showed overall, on average, having diabetes, it's okay, you can still use those corneas as donors?