It took about three and a half years to recruit that trial and readout six-month results. So it’s really a long slog, the effect sizes are often in the 10% to 15% range relative to placebo. So you need a lot of patients per group. And we haven’t pulled the trigger on that yet, because we think it’s a big undertaking, but of course, pending successful and robust data in some of our other ongoing Phase 2 trials, that could be revisited in any time.
Emily Bodnar: Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. Our next question will come from Sam Slutsky with LifeSci Capital.
Sam Slutsky: Hi. Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for the questions. A quick question for Bill. On the S1P class, obviously, Zeposia sales in UC I think has so far underwhelmed versus earlier expectations. That said, Pfizer obviously believes that a [indiscernible] blockbuster in IBD, and they obviously paid a good amount of money to get the drug. I guess as the IBD position, it would be good to get your view on what factors could have contributed to the slow launch of Zeposia. And then what potential profile for next gen S1P1 could lead to better uptake or does ultimately result in blockbuster potential expected for the class?
Raju Mohan: Go ahead, Bill.
Bill Sandborn: Yes, I’ll opine a little bit and then maybe Marty, given all of his life experience, could talk a little bit about the launch as well for Zeposia. But I think whenever there’s a new mechanism of action, robust physician and provider engagement in education is required. Therapies usually don’t sell themselves. They require an educational and ultimately marketing campaign. And I think the sense that I get from all of my colleagues in the field is that that just hasn’t happened in any robust way with Zeposia. So I think that plays a lot into it. The drug has also been priced for the multiple sclerosis market. So it’s in the $80,000, $90,000 $100,000 range. So as a starting price for an IBD drug, that’s kind of high and that really then sets barriers to access.
So I think it’s heavily those things. I do have the sense that there is a rising experience with using the drug and it’d be interesting to see where Pfizer sets their pricing. I would anticipate that they’re going to put a lot more marketing and education muscle behind it, and that the launch of etrasimod will really start to grow the class. What are physicians and ultimately patients looking for? I think it’s really heavily about efficacy. And most of our legacy drugs were about 10% better than placebo. So 10% placebo adjusted remission rates for induction. Some of the newer entrants, Rinvoq is 20% to 25% placebo adjusted delta, some of the Phase 2 data with TL1A antibodies, both the Prometheus and Roivant. The Pfizer molecules had 25% and 20%, respectively, remission deltas.
Etrasimod depending when you look at it, Phase 2 was 25%, Phase 3 was 20% in one trial and about 10% in the other trial. Blended average is probably high teens pushing 20%. So I think the next generation drugs that would be really differentiated and exciting, you probably want to see at least a 15% and ideally 20% or more placebo adjusted remission rate. And that’s what we’re aspiring to. And if we land in that zone on not only the primary endpoint, but with consistency and the secondary endpoints and some of the differentiating things like getting complete endoscopic remission and stuff like that, that’s going to be very interesting to people. Our drug is not aimed at multiple sclerosis. So it could be appropriately priced for an ulcerative colitis market.
And we think all of that will be a real opportunity. Marty, did you want to add anything about the sort of long trajectory of Zeposia as you see it?
