YUTREPIA is the first dry-powder formulation of treprostinil approved for PAH and PH-ILD. Clinically, how does a dry-powder device compare to nebulized or parenteral delivery in terms of ease of use, patient adherence, and quality of life?

The pivotal INSPIRE study included patients both naïve to treprostinil and those transitioning from nebulized therapy. What do these findings tell us about the titratability and real-world utility of YUTREPIA across different patient profiles?

Given the diversity and historically limited treatment options for PH-ILD, how important is this approval for patients with diseases like IPF and CPFE, and do you expect YUTREPIA to be quickly adopted in this subgroup?

YUTREPIA’s low inspiratory effort design is positioned as an advantage for patients with limited lung capacity. In practice, how often do PAH or PH-ILD patients struggle with inhalation-based treatments, and how meaningful is this design improvement?

Liquidia currently faces a pending injunction motion from United Therapeutics. From your clinical perspective, how do legal disputes like these impact physician and patient decision-making when a newly approved therapy is introduced?

YUTREPIA uses PRINT® technology to produce uniform, lung-optimized particles. Can you explain how particle uniformity and deposition depth can influence both therapeutic effect and side effect profile in pulmonary hypertension?

As YUTREPIA targets the same mechanism as Tyvaso but through a different device and formulation, what are the key differentiators that might influence a physician’s decision to transition a patient to this new formulation?

With the ongoing ASCENT study and a second treprostinil formulation (L606) in the pipeline, what strategic position does Liquidia appear to be carving out in the broader PAH and PH-ILD treatment space?