This is exactly what I was driving at with my question. I have found management's  narrative around the 'missing' eGFR data to be confusing. I wanted to check with the board that I hadn't missed something. It appears I haven't. I am hopeful there are some grounds to believe that the recent BTD announcement was the starter and now we are waiting for the proverbial main course. But I still can't understand why go for (or be given) BTD for a CVD indication BEFORE a CKD indication, when the latter is less well served than the former. Surely the FDA can see all the data and these discussions wouldn't be bound by embargo considerations? Is the FDA not just concerned about serving unmet needs in as timeya fashion as possible?