• In this Phase 1b study, zumilokibart achieved a mean absolute FeNO reduction of 45 ppb, corresponding to a 60% decrease from baseline after a single dose. From a clinical perspective, how meaningful is this magnitude of FeNO suppression for patients with Type 2 asthma, particularly in relation to future exacerbation risk?

• With plans to advance zumilokibart into the ASPIRE asthma trial and expand into broader inflammatory and immunology indications, how do you see this therapy fitting into the evolving asthma treatment algorithm over the next five to ten years, particularly relative to established biologics such as dupilumab?

• This trial enrolled patients with baseline FeNO ≥25 ppb, representing an enriched Type 2 inflammation population. How does this biomarker-driven approach improve the likelihood of demonstrating clinical benefit, and could it become standard practice in future asthma trials?

The study demonstrated durable FeNO suppression through 16 weeks in all patients and through 32 weeks in those with available follow-up. How important is this level of durability in shaping the future asthma treatment paradigm, especially with respect to the feasibility of 3- or 6-month dosing intervals?

One of the major challenges in asthma management is treatment adherence. How could the possibility of quarterly or twice-yearly dosing change patient behavior, persistence on therapy, and overall disease control compared with currently available biologics?

Zumilokibart was well tolerated, with no serious adverse events, no Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events, and no anti-drug antibodies observed. In a chronic disease like asthma, how critical is this safety profile when evaluating a biologic for long-term maintenance therapy?