In VAYHIT2, ianalumab plus eltrombopag significantly prolonged time to treatment failure (TTF) compared to placebo. How clinically meaningful is this result for ITP patients struggling to maintain safe platelet levels long-term?

The trial reported a significantly higher rate of sustained platelet responses at six months among patients receiving ianalumab. How do these findings compare with the durability of response seen in current standard-of-care options?

Ianalumab was administered as only four once-monthly intravenous doses. How transformative could this short-course regimen be for patients accustomed to lifelong treatment, and do you foresee this impacting adherence and quality of life?

Ianalumab combines B cell depletion through ADCC with BAFF-R pathway inhibition, offering a dual mechanism targeting the underlying autoimmune process. How does this approach differ from existing therapies in terms of expected efficacy and potential relapse prevention?

The safety data from VAYHIT2 showed no new safety signals compared to prior studies. Given that ITP patients often require prolonged therapies with cumulative toxicity, how significant is this safety profile in shaping ianalumab’s positioning in treatment algorithms?

If approved, ianalumab could allow patients to maintain durable platelet levels without continuous therapy. How might this change the current treatment paradigm for relapsed or refractory ITP?

The ongoing VAYHIT1 trial is assessing ianalumab in the first-line setting. Based on the VAYHIT2 results, what expectations do you have for ianalumab’s performance earlier in the disease course, and could this influence frontline treatment decisions?

Ianalumab is also being studied across multiple B cell-driven autoimmune diseases. How might its efficacy in ITP inform its potential role in other indications, and do you see this as part of a broader shift toward targeted, short-course autoimmune therapies?