In Study 2, 44.6% of patients on 15 mg and 54.3% on 30 mg upadacitinib achieved ≥80% scalp coverage at week 24, compared to only 3.4% on placebo. How clinically meaningful is this response rate compared to existing or investigational therapies for alopecia areata?

The trial met key secondary endpoints including SALT ≤10 and SALT=0. How significant is it to see complete or near-complete scalp coverage in a Phase 3 program, and what does this mean for patients who often face long-standing, severe hair loss?

Patients also experienced improvements in eyebrows and eyelashes. How important are these outcomes for overall patient quality of life and psychosocial well-being?

The safety profile was consistent with other approved indications, with no new signals observed. How reassuring is this for dermatologists considering long-term use of JAK inhibitors in alopecia areata?

Both 15 mg and 30 mg doses showed efficacy. From a clinical perspective, how might dermatologists weigh the trade-offs between dose strength, efficacy, and safety when treating different patient populations?

With baricitinib already approved for alopecia areata, how might upadacitinib differentiate itself within the JAK inhibitor class? Are there specific efficacy or tolerability advantages that stand out?

Given that alopecia areata can affect adolescents as well as adults, how do you view the importance of including adolescent patients in the UP-AA trial program?

Upadacitinib is already approved across multiple immune-mediated conditions. How does the expansion into alopecia areata fit within AbbVie’s broader dermatology and immunology strategy, and what does this signal about the future of JAK inhibitors in dermatology?