The MUSETTE trial did not demonstrate additional benefit from the higher dose in slowing disability progression. What does this outcome reveal about the therapeutic ceiling of B-cell depletion in RMS, and how should clinicians interpret these findings?

Given the low and consistent disability progression rates across both dosing arms, could this suggest that OCREVUS 600 mg has already optimized its impact on long-term disability, or are other biological mechanisms at play?

With the recent launch of the subcutaneous formulation, how might these MUSETTE findings influence decisions between IV and SC administration for both patients and providers, especially in resource-constrained settings?

The MUSETTE study stratified high-dose groups by weight. Did this trial offer any insights on whether body size meaningfully alters exposure-response dynamics for OCREVUS, or does the flat-dose 600 mg remain universally appropriate?

Although the high dose didn’t outperform the 600 mg dose, safety was comparable. From a pharmacovigilance perspective, does this outcome bolster long-term confidence in OCREVUS, even in off-label or complex patient cases?

Despite missing the primary endpoint, Roche emphasized a very low relapse rate—approximately once every 16 years—during the double-blind period. How meaningful is this ARR in the broader spectrum of RMS therapies, and how might it influence treatment planning?

With new entrants like BTK inhibitors in the pipeline, how does the confirmation of OCREVUS 600 mg as optimal affect Roche’s competitive positioning? Can durability and long-term real-world data remain a moat in an increasingly crowded RMS market?

Beyond dosing, Roche is exploring high-concentration on-body delivery. What is the strategic value of these innovations in the long run, and could they help OCREVUS stay relevant as the treatment paradigm shifts toward convenience and home-based care?