The 50 mg once-daily dose of obefazimod achieved a pooled placebo-adjusted clinical remission rate of 16.4% (p<0.0001) at Week 8 across ABTECT-1 and ABTECT-2. How meaningful is this remission rate compared to current advanced therapies used in moderate to severely active UC?

ABTECT-1 reported a 19.3% placebo-adjusted remission rate while ABTECT-2 showed 13.4%. What factors could explain the variance between these two trials, and does this impact the overall interpretation of efficacy?

All key secondary endpoints, including endoscopic improvement and clinical response, were met with high statistical significance. How do these secondary outcomes strengthen confidence in obefazimod’s therapeutic potential?

Nearly half of the study population had inadequate response to prior advanced therapies, including the largest cohort of JAK inhibitor-experienced patients in a Phase 3 UC trial. How do the results inform treatment strategies for these difficult-to-treat subgroups?

The 25 mg dose met clinical remission in ABTECT-1 but not in ABTECT-2, while both doses showed strong clinical response rates. Do these findings suggest potential for dose optimization or personalized dosing in clinical practice?

Obefazimod demonstrated favorable tolerability with no new safety signals observed. How does this safety profile position obefazimod for long-term maintenance therapy compared to existing oral and biologic treatments?

With 678 responders now enrolled in the 44-week maintenance trial and regulatory submissions planned for late 2026, what will be the most critical outcomes to watch for that could influence approval and adoption?

As a first-in-class miR-124 enhancer with oral administration, how could obefazimod change the treatment landscape for UC, particularly in balancing early-line therapy with options for patients who have cycled through multiple biologics?