[{"id":"vitalize-irods","name":"Change in I-RODS Score","type":"PRIMARY","unit":"points","results":[],"timepoint":"Week 24","description":"I-RODS score change from baseline, comparing riliprubart to IVIg. This is a head-to-head comparison against the current standard of care — not just \"better than nothing\" (placebo) but \"as good as or better than what doctors already use.\" If riliprubart matches or beats IVIg, it validates the switch to a targeted therapy."}]

OPEN QUESTIONS: 1. What is the exact NI margin? (Critical for interpreting results) 2. Will there be a superiority test if NI is met? 3. What dose of IVIg is the comparator arm receiving? 4. Is there a pre-specified subgroup analysis by complement biomarkers? INVESTMENT IMPLICATIONS: - NI MET: Game-changing — first targeted therapy with head-to-head evidence vs IVIg in CIDP. Payers would have strong rationale to cover riliprubart. Major differentiation vs Vyvgart and claseprubart (neither has IVIg comparator data). - SUPERIORITY: Blockbuster-level result. Would reshape CIDP treatment paradigm. - NI FAILED: Significant setback for riliprubart in CIDP. May still get approved via MOBILIZE (placebo-controlled) but market uptake would be slower. THIS IS UNIQUELY VALUABLE DATA: - Vyvgart has NO head-to-head IVIg data in CIDP - Claseprubart has NO head-to-head IVIg data - Only riliprubart will have this — major differentiation if positive Source: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06290141, Sanofi R&D presentations

While MOBILIZE establishes efficacy vs placebo for regulators, physicians and payers need head-to-head data vs the standard of care (IVIg) to justify switching patients. IVIg requires repeated infusion center visits (every 3-4 weeks, 4-6 hour sessions). Riliprubart SC Q4W offers major convenience advantage if efficacy is comparable.