At Week 24, over 35% of patients treated with SC TREMFYA® achieved clinical remission, compared to 9.4% on placebo. In clinical practice, how significant is this remission delta for treatment decision-making, and does it compare favorably with other biologics used in UC?

TREMFYA is now positioned as the first IL-23 inhibitor to demonstrate success with a fully subcutaneous induction regimen. What impact might this convenience have on adherence and patient autonomy, especially in long-term disease management?

The trial showed 40–45% endoscopic improvement in the TREMFYA® arms versus just 12% for placebo. From a mucosal healing standpoint, how predictive are these endoscopic outcomes of sustained disease control?

Both 100 mg q8w and 200 mg q4w maintenance schedules showed similar efficacy. How important is having dosing flexibility post-induction in terms of customizing treatment plans for different patient profiles?

REMFYA® showed statistically significant benefit across both biologic/JAK inhibitor-naïve and -refractory patients. What does this suggest about its mechanism and durability in patients with prior treatment failures?

With safety outcomes in ASTRO aligning with the known profile of TREMFYA®, and additional liver monitoring requirements introduced in UC and CD, how manageable is this monitoring burden in routine care?

Given that SC induction results mirrored those seen with IV induction in the QUASAR study, do you see SC induction eventually becoming the preferred standard, particularly in community settings or for self-administering patients?

Assuming FDA approval of SC induction is granted, how quickly do you expect the SC option to be integrated into clinical practice, and what are the key hurdles for broader physician uptake and payer coverage?