Well written and an important step. Below are my questions/suggestions.
1. You have used median and range for almost all parameters expect when describing the age and baseline blood eosinophil count, would suggest switching to median and range for consistency.
2. 4 3.6 Clinical outcomes (exploratory) >> suggest: exploratory clinical outcomes
3. Would spell out s.c. in its first appearance (introduction) or else remove this abbreviation.
4. The change in eosinophil count was presented as median in the text and as mean in the figure. Would suggest presenting the median across both text and figures for consistency.
5. Outcomes by ADA-positivity can be found in the Supplementary Results. May be brief summary or abstract message of these outcomes.
6. the FEV1 is described in L and as mean and SD. the SD has 4 decimals and the mean has 3 decimals. I would suggest consistency.
7. The FEV1 based on Figure 3 at week 40, was similar to baseline for the low dose group?. Can you indicate that in the result section. Further I would suggest using squares or patent circles instead of triangles.
8. CGIC and PGIC-IA are presented very vaguely in that you have captured improvement on a scale, yet the figure only present the % with at least minimal clinical improvement. Suggest presenting the data in supplemental table and to use data label within the bar charts as these data are not presented anywhere in the text.
9. for the graphical abstract, I suggest a simplified illustration of the pharmacodynamic figure rather than presenting the actual figure with small font that is difficult to read.