# Episode 155 - September 19, 2025

An episode of [Biotech Hangout](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1568911820), 19 Sep 2025, 58 min.

Audio: https://anchor.fm/s/55bdff38/podcast/play/108548690/https%3A%2F%2Fd3ctxlq1ktw2nl.cloudfront.net%2Fstaging%2F2025-8-19%2F407801824-44100-2-600cb473a2631.m4a

On this week’s episode, Daphne Zohar, Josh Schimmer, Luba Greenwood and Matt Gline open with a look at overall market sentiment, spotlighting Stifel’s bullish report on the biotech sector’s nice recovery since April’s “liberation day” with the XBI up over 40%, the recent wave of M&A activity, and the Biotech Winter. The co-hosts then highlight recent deals, including Roche’s $3.5 billion acquisition of 89Bio and Novartis’s $5.7 billion licensing agreement with Monte Rosa Therapeutics. In data news, the group overviews aTyr Pharma’s Phase 3 results in pulmonary sarcoidosis, with Matt Gline sharing perspective on the therapeutic area after Roivant’s similar fate. Next, long-versus-short dynamics around biotech data readouts are highlighted, along with positive data sets from Areteia and Apollo. Matt also details Roivant’s positive Phase 3 results in dermatomyositis. The conversation then turns to big pharma’s exodus from the UK, as several companies including Merck, AstraZeneca, and Eli Lilly scale back large investments. The co-hosts explore possible causes for the pullback, such as heavy regulation and tax incentives holding back innovation. Michal Preminger joins the discussion to share her unique insights on UK and US biotech hubs and draws attention to the Massachusetts paradox and the impact on the biopharma industry. *This episode aired on September 19, 2025

## Transcript

[0:00] You're listening to Biotech Hangout, a live and unedited
[0:03] weekly discussion of all the latest news in our industry with
[0:07] a group of biotech insiders. I'm Daphne Zohar and my Co hosts
[0:11] today are Josh Shimmer, Luba Greenwood and Matt Klein.
[0:15] For more information about our hosts and guest speakers, or to
[0:18] listen to the most recent episode, please go to
[0:20] biotechhangout.com. So the biotech sector had a nice
[0:25] recovery since April's liberation day, with XBI up over
[0:29] 40%. Our colleague Tim Opler at
[0:33] Steeple put out a bullish report arguing biotech is poised to
[0:37] outperform. They calculate that the
[0:39] cumulative enterprise value of the entire public global biotech
[0:44] sector is up 89% since April's lows.
[0:48] And the case that Stifel makes for biotech outperforming cites
[0:52] a number of factors, including interest rates, which we saw one
[0:55] cut earlier this week and more cuts are anticipated.
[0:59] M&A activity is accelerating and this was one of the major points
[1:02] that they made that major pharma companies are holding $1.2
[1:06] trillion in acquisition firepower as they face 180
[1:11] billion in revenue at risk from patent cliffs, meaning
[1:14] blockbuster drugs that lose their patent status by 20-30.
[1:19] And one interesting point they made is that the annualized M&A
[1:23] is tracking to be around 186 billion, making it the strongest
[1:27] year since 2019 despite the lack of mega deals.
[1:32] And we've heard a lot about the biotech winter.
[1:34] In fact, there was an article in the Boston Globe this week heard
[1:37] a lot about that over the past few years with companies and
[1:40] programs shutting down and layoffs across the sector.
[1:44] But Stifel points out that the upside of this is that there's
[1:47] been a healthy cleansing process, eliminating weak
[1:50] companies and leaving 82% is what they estimate of public US
[1:55] biotech value concentrated in firms with strong data sets.
[1:59] They have a really nice analysis what they look at the strength
[2:02] of the data set of different companies and then the number of
[2:05] publicly traded biotechs has dropped over 20% in the past
[2:09] forty months through different things happening including
[2:12] bankruptcies and acquisitions, while billion dollar companies
[2:15] have expanded significantly. So again, this makes the
[2:18] argument that there's a healthier distribution with
[2:21] fewer negative enterprise value firms.
[2:24] Of course, there's still a number of headwinds, including
[2:26] continued policy uncertainty, which we're going to touch on,
[2:29] but many positives as well. Josh, I want to start with you
[2:32] and I'm curious to see if you're seeing an improvement in
[2:35] investor sentiment and just overall what you're seeing out
[2:38] there. Yeah, things are are looking up.
[2:42] You know, we we've run our own analysis.
[2:45] Actually looking at the individual components on a
[2:47] weighted basis of the XBI, the index that's gone pretty much
[2:52] nowhere for the last 10 or so years and and suggest that
[2:55] biotech is fairly uninvestable for generalist investors as
[2:58] we've talked about plenty of times on this show.
[3:01] But what's really interesting is if you break down the XBI by its
[3:04] individual components and kind of play, play each one out using
[3:09] consensus estimates, the the XBI itself looks like it's going
[3:12] from basically an index that's never ever on in aggregate on a
[3:18] weighted basis been anywhere close to profitable.
[3:21] It's actually now because of some of the dynamics that you
[3:24] you just pointed out and that Timid pointed out is maturing in
[3:28] a really interesting way. It's now, it's now just on the
[3:30] cusp of profitability with meaningful inflection over the
[3:35] next two to three years in that profitability again driven by
[3:42] maturation of the industry companies that are having really
[3:47] excellent product launches, culling of the herd to some
[3:52] extent. So that, you know, the, the XBI
[3:55] includes about 120 companies, you know, and so, and so we're
[3:59] kind of reinvigorating it with, with high quality profitable
[4:04] companies. And within a couple of years you
[4:07] could division the valuation of the sector in total being quite
[4:11] appealing to generalist investors for the again, for the
[4:14] first time ever, because why would anyone ever want to invest
[4:16] in an unprofitable sector, a sector that, by the way, was
[4:20] unprofitable for, for for decades.
[4:23] So that's actually changing in, in front of our eyes.
[4:26] I think many are kind of getting that sense that something is
[4:29] really different about the industry in a very fundamental
[4:33] type way. It helps that the IPO windows
[4:36] been closed for so long that we haven't, you know added more
[4:39] speculative type names to the to the ecosystem.
[4:43] And, and as the IPO window opens, I think we're going to
[4:46] have plenty of, of high quality public private companies move
[4:52] through that, that window to, to join their, their publicly
[4:56] traded peers and again, in a, in a much healthier way than in the
[5:00] past. So, you know, I'm, I'm also
[5:03] rather bullish on the sector in general as a result, obviously
[5:08] with the, all the headwinds that we all know about that we're
[5:10] going to have to address, you know, I think we probably have a
[5:13] little different views on, on M&A.
[5:15] It is, it's been a high volume year for for M&A at least for
[5:20] publicly traded biotech companies.
[5:22] We, we tend to focus on those more so than the the private
[5:25] transactions deal value, aggregate deal value still
[5:29] pretty light because we're still still a lot of cleanup.
[5:32] M&A that that's. Happening and that's that's
[5:34] totally. OK, but I think we.
[5:37] We look for forces other than M&A to really drive the the
[5:40] sector in total because it is really hard to move the needle
[5:44] using that. But it's a lot easier to move
[5:46] the needle when you actually create sound, fundamental
[5:49] business models that make the sector profitable and attractive
[5:52] for a larger audience. It's a really interesting point.
[5:56] And I think if I look back a few years ago, we were on this same
[6:00] program talking about the fact that the business model in
[6:03] biotech is broken or was broken. The idea that it relied so
[6:08] heavily on M and AI think was a major problem.
[6:11] But seeing biotechs kind of grow up and be able to launch drugs
[6:15] successfully is, is really something I think very positive
[6:18] for the sector. So let's go to Matt and just get
[6:21] your general comments and then Luba will talk about a couple of
[6:24] the M&A transactions we saw, well, I guess one M&A and one
[6:28] licensing deal this week. Look, I think I am sorry.
[6:33] Can you hear me OK? I'm just making sure.
[6:34] Yep. Great.
[6:35] I feel like I'm sort of halfway between host and and guest today
[6:40] because this week I've kind of had my head in the sand.
[6:42] We put out some good data, but but what I was going to say is
[6:44] it's hard to feel bad a week that you've put out good data.
[6:48] And so I'm all optimism. I actually agree with a ton of
[6:52] what Josh just said. And in particular, I have long
[6:56] thought the like M and a focus of the biotech investment
[7:00] community is like bad long term for the sector just because it
[7:05] encourages like crowding and it encourages sort of group think
[7:10] and and everyone sort of playing the shell game of trying to
[7:13] figure out what other people are thinking instead of trying to
[7:16] figure out like what's going to work as a business.
[7:19] And the thing that I found really exciting about the last
[7:21] 24 months has been the emergence of and some of them have been
[7:25] acquired, but companies like Madrigal and Verona and others
[7:29] that, that and and our Genex that have like launched products
[7:32] successfully and that are now like turning biotech from
[7:37] whatever from from unprofitable as Josh described as like a sort
[7:41] of more heterogeneity of business model, more people
[7:44] actually trying to do what everybody in every industry has
[7:47] to do, which is to build a business around their thing.
[7:49] And it's fun to be a part of that, and it's fun to watch it
[7:51] happen, and sort of seeing it work successfully across repeat
[7:56] examples is probably what is the biggest source of my optimism.
[8:00] Yeah. And we'll come back to your data
[8:02] a little bit later. So thanks for joining us on what
[8:05] we know is a busy week for you. Can I just kind of comment on
[8:08] what Matt just said? Matt, Congrats as well on those
[8:11] results. But I, I always get the most,
[8:14] the most side eyed look when I suggest that M&A and biotech is
[8:18] anything but an amazing thing for the sector.
[8:20] But you know, to your point, what we wind up doing is we're
[8:23] depleting those companies that could drive profitability, that
[8:26] could be bellwether components of the XBI that could make the
[8:30] industry appealing for even the generalist investors.
[8:33] And so we, we, we, we cheer the short term victories, but it's
[8:37] hard not to see that how they come at the expense of of the of
[8:41] the sector overall, because it's, it is, it's taken a lot
[8:44] longer than it should have for the XBI to be a profitable type
[8:48] index. This isn't a comment on the XBI
[8:51] in the direction it's headed in because it's it's on separate
[8:54] security, but. You know we the.
[8:56] The sector needs profitability. In, in, in.
[9:00] Reasonable amounts to draw the generalists and without that
[9:04] dynamic we're just kind of trading amongst ourselves the
[9:07] same frustration, wondering what it's going to take for the
[9:09] sector to to really start to to inflect.
[9:12] We keep hoping that M&A is going to do the trick, but in many
[9:15] ways we're hoping for the wrong thing.
[9:18] That is because it is that M&A that that sits on the the sector
[9:23] and prevents it from being more profitable, more business minded
[9:27] and focused in in general. So Madam, I'm glad you said it
[9:31] because anytime I bring up something that is even remotely
[9:33] critical of M&A like investors get get are shocked that I could
[9:38] ever suggest something like that.
[9:39] But I think you're, you're spot on.
[9:40] It's a short term win for a long term questionable productivity.
[9:46] It's also just boring at some level, like whatever, not
[9:49] everybody on this call like lives only as an investor in
[9:51] biotech, but like in the industry, if the only thing that
[9:54] is considered, I think M&A is great for the right situations
[9:57] and we've sold things and we buy things all the time.
[10:00] And so I, I but, but, but if the only way to win is to get
[10:04] bought, it's just like boring. It's not that interesting.
[10:07] You don't get to like build fun businesses.
[10:08] You don't get to think about creative ways to create value
[10:11] that fall outside of like the narrow package it up and sell it
[10:13] to a big pharma company kind of outcomes.
[10:16] And I think a a sector with more heterogeneity, with more
[10:18] different business models, with more creativity is just like a
[10:21] more fun sector to be a part of. Yeah.
[10:25] OK. Let's go to Luba.
[10:26] Luba first. Any thoughts generally on what's
[10:29] been happening in the sector? And then love to hear you cover
[10:33] the rules this week. Yeah, absolutely.
[10:35] So I completely agree with MNA comments, although I do have to
[10:39] say we do have some, a few sectors in healthcare that have
[10:43] very limited MNA options and that's medical device and
[10:46] diagnostics. And none of us want to be in
[10:48] that sector. It's not all that fun, but I do
[10:52] agree with fundamentally the issues with M&A and I agree I'm
[10:58] highly bullish on the sector. What's happening right now,
[11:01] We're fundraising. It's great time to do that,
[11:04] especially if you're a clinical stage company.
[11:07] I think there's been a lot of cleanup in the public markets as
[11:10] everyone has just mentioned. And then just one more thing to
[11:13] add is we're already seeing some journalists coming in and we're
[11:17] also seeing some new funds that are on the public sector coming
[11:21] in as well. So that's all good news and I
[11:25] think it's all trending in the right direction Now to cover a
[11:28] few deals. Speaking of MA, first I'll start
[11:32] with what we saw this week. Roche is acquiring a company
[11:36] called 89 Bio. It's a transaction that's worth
[11:39] up to 3.5 billion. It is in the metabolic and
[11:43] cardio metabolic and liver disease space.
[11:46] Shows again how hot the space is.
[11:49] Just digging in into the deal and the details of it, the Roche
[11:54] is actually paying about 2.4 billion upfront for 14 1/2 per
[12:00] share in cash. On top of that, shareholders
[12:03] have a way to earn out additional, additional money up
[12:07] to that 3.5 billion with additional milestones.
[12:10] So they set 3 milestones and they're all commercially based
[12:14] ones. One is to recede to get to
[12:17] commercial launch in serotic mash by 20-30.
[12:20] The other one is to get over 3 billion in global sales.
[12:24] And the last is getting over 4 billion in global sales.
[12:28] So what does that tell you #1 it shows that Roche is sees some
[12:34] blockbuster potential value in this and specifically in FGF 21
[12:39] therapies. The way they structured it is
[12:42] pretty classical milestone based deal structure that Roche has
[12:46] done before. I was at Roche and M&A
[12:48] previously to that. We like these structures that
[12:51] limits the upfront risk, but you can get quite a bit on the
[12:55] upside, especially if you do see this as blockbuster potential.
[12:59] And why does this matter and why are people excited about this?
[13:03] So the drug that's currently called Pegozafermin, it is in
[13:09] late stage development from MASH.
[13:12] And we've already seen as I believe Jeff just mentioned,
[13:16] there's been Rezdifra that was approved, which is Madrigal as a
[13:22] drug, but it was approved for non serotic mash.
[13:26] So cirrhosis still remains a pretty major unmet medical need.
[13:31] So if you're looking into FGF 21 analogs like the 89 BIOS drug,
[13:37] also if you're looking at Akiros EFX drug, they are showing
[13:42] pretty encouraging data suggesting that there is
[13:45] fibrosis regression and even benefit in cirrhotic.
[13:49] So, so there's quite a bit of upside on top of the drug that's
[13:55] on the market today. So this is where Roche is, is
[13:58] playing really into this field. And if you're taking a step back
[14:03] and looking into kind of why Roche is doing this, I mean they
[14:08] have had a very big push into metabolism very recently and
[14:15] cardio metabolic pathways. They acquire Karma Therapeutics.
[14:19] They just did a deal, a pretty large deal with Zeeland Pharma
[14:23] that was an obesity. So they want to play in the
[14:26] broader cardiorenal metabolic space.
[14:30] And they also think that you can combine FGF 21 and GOP one to
[14:37] increase efficacy beyond obesity and fatty liver and beyond.
[14:41] So good news if you are an investor eliciting, if you're an
[14:45] operator, this validates FGF 21 biology.
[14:49] It shows a signal that Big Pharma is still trying to
[14:52] consolidate all their metabolic assets.
[14:54] They're still playing in this field.
[14:56] It's still hot, it's still big. And Roche in particular is
[14:59] betting on mash to move beyond early fibrosis into advanced
[15:04] disease. And they think that you can get
[15:06] multi billion dollar annual sales with this.
[15:09] The only risk here, of course, is the phase three readout is
[15:13] not expected until 2027. So execution risk is still high,
[15:19] but it's, it's, it's good for the future of mash and metabolic
[15:23] disease. Yeah.
[15:25] And you pointed out the CVR, it's, it's interesting that it's
[15:30] a tool that pharma companies like to use, but it doesn't
[15:33] sound like the market's attributing a ton of value to
[15:36] the CVR and the likelihood of achieving it based on the
[15:40] current value. So that's, that's sort of an
[15:43] interesting point. I guess the milestones seem like
[15:46] they maybe are a little more challenging as they were laid
[15:50] out. Yeah, I agree.
[15:54] OK, let's go on to the Novartis licensing of Monterosa's.
[16:00] Oh yes, programs. Yes, so I.
[16:01] Love this because you know, people talked last year, last
[16:05] few years about INI immunology, preclinical work, AI and you
[16:11] know, we're always worried when we start hyping up certain areas
[16:15] such as INI and AI drug discovery that there's nothing
[16:19] to it. So for, for those people that
[16:22] are in this space and are excited about this space, this
[16:25] deal is actually great for it's a further validation that AI
[16:31] drug discovery is meaningful. Having platform technologies is
[16:36] meaningful and there's still quite a lot of interest in
[16:39] preclinical to early clinical immunology assets.
[16:43] So just to give you a background, Novartis just struck
[16:47] a licensing deal with Monta Rosa.
[16:50] It is valued to to about 5.27 billion.
[16:54] Of course this is the total value that one could get and it
[16:59] shows quite a still a lot of interest in next generation
[17:03] small molecule degraders for in the immune mediated space.
[17:08] Now again they don't get all 5 point 5.7 billion upfront.
[17:12] Monterosa gets 120 million which is still pretty good and
[17:17] Novartis in return gets exclusive license for
[17:20] undisclosed target that is currently in discovery.
[17:24] And this target was used was developed by using Monterosa's
[17:31] AI and machine learning powered platform, which is a molecular
[17:35] glue degrader platform that they have called Queen and Novartis.
[17:41] In addition to this one has an option to license two additional
[17:44] programs from Monterosa in their preclinical immunology pipeline.
[17:49] So if it all goes well, you know with option and maintenance fees
[17:53] and commercial milestones, if you Add all of that up,
[17:57] Monterosa could receive about 5.7 million billion, but right
[18:02] now it's getting 120 million upfront.
[18:05] This is not the first deal. So this is actually Novartis has
[18:09] doubled down on, on these deals with Monterosa.
[18:12] Last year they licensed another molecular glue degrader
[18:16] targeting VAP 1 which is called MRT 6160 that they've in license
[18:24] for 150 million upfront and then milestones that were over 2
[18:29] billion. That program is already
[18:31] advancing in the clinic, so very exciting.
[18:35] So Novartis is looking to with this deal to get to the same
[18:39] place as they got to with the earlier deal.
[18:43] So some of the things just for investors, operators and others
[18:46] in the biotech, why this is exciting, important.
[18:50] You know, if you're in protein degradation, molecular glue
[18:53] space, pharma is betting very heavily on that space,
[18:58] especially Novartis continues to do so.
[19:02] AI drug discovery is really paying off for many companies,
[19:06] especially if you can come up with novel drug targets and take
[19:09] them through discovery and early testing and into the clinic.
[19:13] And upfront, again, you know, this is these are big numbers,
[19:17] but still upfront is kind of at the modest 100 and 2200 and
[19:21] 22150 for these types of deals. So for Novartis and other
[19:26] pharma, it means they can keep the risk low and really look to
[19:31] Monterosa to deliver on discovery.
[19:33] And then once they do and, and hit their preclinical
[19:36] milestones, then the Vardis can step in and help with the, with
[19:42] the, with development and commercial, of course.
[19:45] So what's good for Monterosa, it gives it cash, of course,
[19:49] credibility, future investment and partnerships.
[19:52] They're exclusive on these particular molecules, but they,
[19:56] they're opened up to, to potential partnership with
[19:59] others. And what's exciting for them,
[20:01] they can also extend to finance. They have multiple programs that
[20:06] they're interested to finance into Phase 2.
[20:09] Yeah. Thank you by those really
[20:12] helpful insights on those deals. So let's move on to data.
[20:17] Earlier this week, a tire pharma announced that their phase three
[20:20] study of efsophidamod in pulmonary sarcoidosis did not
[20:26] meet its primary endpoint. Matt, I believe Royvant ran a
[20:29] phase two study in this indication that also didn't show
[20:32] benefit. Any thoughts on the A tire study
[20:35] and learnings for others considering this indication?
[20:39] Yeah, thanks. We, we had a failed study
[20:41] ourselves in an anti GM CSF antibody in sarcoidosis just
[20:45] about a year ago, a little bit less than a year ago.
[20:47] Look, I think first of all, if you're not familiar with
[20:50] sarcoidosis, this is a this is a tough disease.
[20:52] It's tough disease and that makes me glad that people have
[20:55] done work in it, including ATIRE a couple 100,000 patients, very
[21:00] sick, high morbidity, high mortality and really no option.
[21:04] I mean, these patients are treated with sort of the normal
[21:06] range of of immunosuppressants and steroids and things like
[21:09] that, but mostly no good treatment options.
[21:11] So first of all, say failed study or not having good on a
[21:14] tire for for giving it a go. And I think it's an area that
[21:16] desperately needs successful development.
[21:19] I think one of the interesting things about the a tire study
[21:22] that failed was the primary endpoint, which was a a true
[21:25] steroid sparing endpoint, right? They were trying to show a delta
[21:30] in the steroid reduction of patients on drug versus off on a
[21:34] placebo adjusted basis. And they showed some, I think
[21:36] they were maybe powered for a 3 milligram delta or something
[21:39] like that or that was their target.
[21:40] And they showed I think like a .7 or .8 milligram delta
[21:44] relative to placebo. You know, I think it's
[21:46] interesting and we see this across a whole bunch of
[21:49] diseases, especially in autoimmune disease where, you
[21:52] know, there's there's sort of FDA established endpoints that
[21:55] are often these composite scales that are subject to hyperbole
[21:57] responses. And it's very hard to find a
[21:59] good way to study disease progression.
[22:02] And then docs really want to get patients off steroids.
[22:04] So I think it's like an interesting choice at endpoint.
[22:06] And I think Atire did some interesting things, including
[22:08] starting with a relatively high baseline level of steroid burden
[22:11] for the patient population, which probably made the study
[22:13] harder to enroll to maximize their their probability of
[22:16] succeeding here. Disappointing.
[22:17] They didn't. I'd say the one most common
[22:19] piece of pushback I've heard on the study is I think the drug
[22:21] mechanistically is a little bit unclear in terms of how it was
[22:24] going to work in the disease, but they had reasonable human
[22:26] clinical data going into this study.
[22:28] And so, you know, obviously a disappointing outcome.
[22:30] This definitely is one of these situations, maybe like Abavax
[22:34] even earlier this summer, where I think the general consensus
[22:37] view was this study had a real uphill battle and probably
[22:39] wasn't going to work. And so I heard it come up a lot
[22:41] from investors because it was the kind of thing where if it
[22:43] had worked, I think it would have had a pronounced effect on
[22:46] the stock price. So disappointing that didn't
[22:48] happen. Disappointing outcome to the
[22:49] study, but interesting study design and interesting focus on
[22:53] steroid sparing as a clinical benefit.
[22:55] Yeah. And one interesting point here
[22:58] is, as you point out, it was a closely followed study and there
[23:02] was a lot of discussion, sort of a battle of longs versus shorts.
[23:06] On the short side, there were a few very active accounts,
[23:09] particularly on X or Twitter. And one of them was Martin
[23:13] Shkreli, who posted in late July that he believed the study would
[23:16] fail and that the stock would be down 80%.
[23:18] He pretty much hit it on the head.
[23:20] And I know that short sellers are viewed as the bad guys by
[23:23] many, but I think a thoughtful short analysis can be helpful to
[23:30] longs, for example, and understanding the weaknesses of
[23:32] a data set, even if one is going to be long.
[23:35] And it may also be helpful to management, I think, and
[23:37] understanding parts of their story that aren't resonating.
[23:41] I, I feel like he's short sellers and, and the skeptics
[23:46] are sometimes maligned, you know, too much.
[23:49] I actually think that they have a very, you know, an important
[23:53] place in our ecosystem. I'm curious what you guys think
[23:56] about that. I would say they can.
[24:02] On the other hand, we've seen some very aggressive, very
[24:05] visible short reports that actually cause confusion amongst
[24:11] patient and clinician groups. And that you know that that's a
[24:16] very unfortunate repercussion of these groups that that lay out
[24:20] their their short proposals. Often times you know it with.
[24:25] A mix of of. Accurate information, but also
[24:28] some misleading information, so. It it can be.
[24:32] Important and valuable for checks and balances in the
[24:34] industry, but on the other hand, when it starts to interfere with
[24:38] companies that are really trying to to do best for for patients
[24:42] and and only causes confusion. We we saw that recently with the
[24:45] company Agios, where I think some various database cases were
[24:49] just kind of taken out of context without all the right
[24:52] information surrounding them to to assuage not only investors,
[24:58] but more importantly the patient and physician community.
[25:02] Yeah, it it can be dangerous. Yeah, and it's also dangerous
[25:05] for the shorts when they do that because they they get killed
[25:08] afterwards. As an issuer, a healthy short
[25:12] thesis in your data as an issuer is to me, just like almost
[25:16] entirely upside, right? Like a healthy, healthy short,
[25:19] healthy short volume drives rapid price discovery on good
[25:24] data, which is great for the issuer and for the longs in
[25:29] those situations. And the other nice quote UN
[25:30] quote nice thing about shorts in biotech is look, as long as as
[25:35] long as the company they're sorting doesn't need to raise
[25:37] money before the data, ultimately science will come and
[25:40] be the reckoning of the question and they'll be right or they'll
[25:44] be wrong and the world will move accordingly.
[25:46] So, you know, I think it's sort of an interesting dynamic.
[25:50] I also think it's interesting Martin's a very popular figure
[25:54] on Twitter. His analysis is is is is fun to
[25:57] read. He's like a good writer and a
[25:59] really thoughtful guy. It's interesting to to talk
[26:02] about him in this context now because obviously his history in
[26:06] the industry also gets talked about a lot.
[26:08] Yeah, I actually, he's been, he's been spot on for a few of
[26:11] these, but and he's got a huge following, but it's interesting.
[26:15] Yeah. So Matt, you announced positive
[26:18] data this week in your private phase three Valor study.
[26:21] Tell us about it. We did, thanks.
[26:23] And in the past when I've gotten on and talked about our own
[26:25] data, there's been sort of some Twitter back and forth on
[26:27] whether whether it was appropriate to have a host
[26:29] promoting something that happened.
[26:31] Yeah, I think you're a guest. You're technically a guest.
[26:33] This week, yeah, I'll take it because I'm going to say good
[26:36] things about it because I'm really pleased with it.
[26:38] Look, I this was, this was a great result for us.
[26:41] We had acquired replicit inhibits, it's a dual inhibitor
[26:44] of of Jack one and tick 2 from Pfizer a few years ago at a time
[26:49] when Jack inhibitor development was at a local Nader with the
[26:53] sort of black box class morning showing up and people sort of
[26:55] weren't sure where the field was going to go.
[26:57] And our view was some whatever baby had been thrown out with
[27:00] bathwater as it was. And that at a minimum, there was
[27:03] a huge opportunity to continue to use these very powerful
[27:06] mechanisms in severe orphan disease where there were not
[27:09] very many other options. And dermatomyositis was our sort
[27:12] of first lead indication where it's it's an interferon and AL
[27:16] 12 and 23 driven disease were both Jack one and Tech 2.
[27:19] We're going to be helpful mechanistically and bluntly
[27:21] where the there really hasn't been a novel therapy
[27:24] successfully developed in a very long time.
[27:26] IVIG had a positive study and an IVIG from Pfizer Octagon was
[27:30] approved a few years ago, but IVIG have been used a long time.
[27:33] They're not really sort of novel and it's a graveyard of drug
[27:35] development. There have been probably 9 or 10
[27:38] failed studies in the last couple of decades of major
[27:41] mechanisms. And so we ran this study eyes
[27:43] wide open. I think there were a lot of
[27:45] questions about conduct, about placebo, about sort of how it
[27:47] was going to develop. And we just saw a beautiful
[27:49] separation and we saw a great test Delta.
[27:52] We saw a really good set of outcomes across skin and muscle
[27:55] disease. Tobias is a pretty devastating
[27:56] inflammatory disease of both the skin and the muscle.
[27:59] And we saw, we saw really good benefit across both sort of the
[28:02] standard measures and then also like patient reported kind of
[28:04] disability indices and things like that.
[28:06] Really nice data. And because the way we ran the
[28:08] study which had a mandatory steroid taper in it, we were
[28:11] also able to show that we were able to deliver meaningful
[28:13] clinical benefit against a backdrop of significantly
[28:15] reduced steroid burden, which after the entire conversation is
[28:18] something docs care a lot about. South, really great week for us,
[28:20] really great week we think for demento myositis patients and
[28:23] excited to carry this one forward.
[28:24] Yeah. And now it was Royvant, sorry a
[28:27] Piovant that's private and you guys own it.
[28:32] So like the Royvant would be because I was just wondering the
[28:36] Royvant stock price, I think very typical of these hub and
[28:40] spoke models didn't get the same type of value appreciation that
[28:44] you would have expected if this was a Royvant wholly owned
[28:48] program and if you were more of like traditional biotech.
[28:51] I obviously know a little bit about this because we, you know,
[28:54] I, I founded a company that has very similar model to Royvanda
[28:58] Purtech. So I'm curious what your
[29:00] thoughts are on that. Yeah.
[29:02] I look, I, I think first of all this effectively is a rivet
[29:07] owned program. Privant is a effectively a 7525
[29:10] JV between US and Pfizer. We own 75%, they own 25%.
[29:14] It's really, it's really our program.
[29:15] The private team has done a phenomenal job running it.
[29:19] You know, I, I stock price reaction, I guess like it's hard
[29:22] to call. There was not a big short thesis
[29:24] going into this data in part because we're even had a pretty
[29:26] big market cap and a bunch of other components to it including
[29:28] a lot of cash. So I think part of the sort of
[29:30] price discovery pace here is going to be on its own.
[29:33] So of course we're a little bigger in market cap than some
[29:35] of the other companies that have data readouts.
[29:37] We had run up a bit into data for a variety of reasons,
[29:39] including developments elsewhere in the business.
[29:41] So I think it's like a little bit hard to pull all those
[29:42] pieces apart. That said, and this is this is
[29:45] the commercial part and I'm sorry, I think our setup from
[29:47] here forward is as good as it's ever been or better.
[29:49] We have now this program, which is exactly the kind of drug
[29:52] that, you know, Josh and I were talking about earlier.
[29:54] Companies have launched successfully in our space.
[29:56] We have more data coming for this drug.
[29:58] We have data coming in our SURN franchise, so I care relatively
[30:02] little about the stock price reaction this week and a lot
[30:04] more about what it means for the next, you know, months and
[30:07] years. Yeah.
[30:07] And you didn't raise data on the back of this, the date.
[30:10] I mean you didn't raise money on the back of the data either,
[30:12] which I think is a positive. Yeah, OK, great.
[30:17] Well, can I just go ahead? And weigh in on this because I
[30:19] think Revent and, and you know, just a small number of similar
[30:23] companies highlight a couple of shortcomings of I guess the just
[30:28] the investment landscape. And 1 is that, you know, Royvant
[30:32] Matt to your, to your credit has put the ROI in, in Royvant
[30:37] through your, your performance to date.
[30:40] And yet, you know, probably struggled to get credit that,
[30:45] you know, you'll be able to do so in again in the future,
[30:48] right. I mean, we all recognize past
[30:50] performance is not a predictor of future performance.
[30:52] But given that the Roy vent track record, you know, you
[30:56] you'd think there'd be a little bit of well, let let's give this
[30:59] team some benefit of the doubt that they're going to continue
[31:01] to really generate value. The other challenge that that
[31:04] you see in dafting, you kind of think kind of allude to this
[31:07] when you have these hub and spoke models or or or even if
[31:11] you don't, if you just have a very deep pipeline of a very
[31:14] attractive programs, for whatever reason, investors
[31:17] become increasingly reluctant to ascribe value beyond the first,
[31:21] you know, one or two assets. And so it leaves these companies
[31:24] that have very promising portfolios with cost of capitals
[31:28] that that probably higher than they should be, which can make
[31:32] it challenging that for them to to fund all this incredible
[31:36] innovation. You wind up having to kind of
[31:38] make choices that you might otherwise not have wanted to
[31:41] make just because again, you're not, you're not getting full
[31:43] credit for that portfolio. So it's, it's kind of an
[31:46] interesting dynamic to me. It's a bit of a shortcoming
[31:49] from, you know, the investment community to, to not see a
[31:53] little bit forward beyond, you know, the, the what have you
[31:58] done for me lately or, or what's, what's on the very near
[32:01] term horizon and think a little bit long longer term, think a
[32:05] little bit more holistically about a company and its
[32:08] valuation. Yeah.
[32:09] I think we've seen a lot of that and that's also been across the
[32:13] board in biotech. This idea that you just got to
[32:17] focus on the key program and get to data, that's partly been, you
[32:20] know, a result of the market. But it is interesting that the
[32:24] companies that are able to advance multiple programs and
[32:28] maybe don't have as much need to fundraise because they're
[32:31] generating cash elsewhere. I don't think the market knows
[32:35] how to understand them as much. But anyway, let's let's move on.
[32:39] Josh, I know you track a lot of companies that are private and
[32:43] you've talked a bit about the quality of the private companies
[32:47] that are out there. You, you, there's a couple that
[32:50] you've been tracking that announced data this week.
[32:52] You tell us more about them. Yeah.
[32:53] So there's there's like. With the IPO window having been
[32:57] closed for so long, the private companies are forced to, to
[33:00] mature generate data that otherwise would have been
[33:03] generated in a very binary way in the public markets.
[33:07] And so we are seeing a very different private company,
[33:10] biotech company ecosystem. So a couple of data points this
[33:13] week, the team from Eritea, wonderful team who who actually
[33:17] pulled the product out of Biogen arapeprazole that failed in ALS.
[33:24] But what they, what they saw in that trial was an interesting
[33:27] signal of significant reduction in eosinophil count.
[33:32] So naturally they repurpose that for asthma, eosinophilic asthma
[33:36] and you know after working on this program for for some time
[33:39] came out with positive phase 3 results.
[33:43] So, so as a basically an oral option to treat eosinophilic
[33:48] asthma, which remains a very large unmet medical need.
[33:51] So nice to see that that data point not, not tremendously
[33:56] surprising because they had done such a good job characterizing
[33:59] it. But again, now we've got a, you
[34:01] know, another private company that has positive phase three
[34:04] data and have to figure out their own, their own strategy
[34:07] going forward. And then a very different
[34:09] company called Apollo Therapeutics.
[34:11] They're based in the UK, which might actually be an interesting
[34:14] segue into UK innovation and what's been going on lately, But
[34:19] it's it's not a really wonderful team.
[34:20] They've formed a number of partnerships with some of the
[34:23] leading academic centers in the UK to try to, you know, tech
[34:27] transfer some of the more promising programs.
[34:30] And So what they just announced was a positive data in atopic
[34:36] dermatitis for their Illinois 17 antibody that the top level
[34:40] results sound quite good. We don't have all the details,
[34:42] just that the active treatment arm, not the not the placebo
[34:47] arm, but again, just kind of reflective of, of what we're
[34:50] seeing in the in the private company space with companies
[34:54] being forced to hit milestones risk or de risk before they come
[34:59] to the public markets. And I think ultimately that is
[35:02] very healthy for for the public markets at at the end of the
[35:06] day, I'm not sure if we want to talk about what's been going on
[35:08] in the UK here or save that for for.
[35:10] Later, Yeah, No, no, this is a perfect, perfect segue so we can
[35:15] talk about that. So over the last week, 3 big
[35:18] pharma companies announced plans to leave the UK in some form or
[35:23] another, and so not fully leave, but abandoned different
[35:25] projects. Merck is abandoning a planned $1
[35:28] billion pound London Research Center and withdrawing from
[35:32] existing UK Rd. facilities in the Crick Institute in London.
[35:35] Bioscience Innovation Center AstraZeneca announced plans to
[35:40] forego a $270 million UK vaccine facility, and then Lily
[35:46] announced its reconsidering plans for UK Lily Gateway Labs.
[35:50] And you know, in general, these companies and others have
[35:53] criticized the business environment in the UK, which we
[35:57] can talk a little bit about. It's important to point out and
[36:01] I think you touched on this with Apollo, that the UK is home to
[36:05] leading scientists, universities, early stage
[36:07] investors and of course couple major pharma companies.
[36:11] It has all of the ingredients of a biotech hub like Boston and
[36:15] San Francisco, but it really hasn't been able to to pick up
[36:19] steam in that, in that direction.
[36:22] And it raises interesting questions of what's held it
[36:24] back. So you know, the issues have a
[36:27] lot to do with over regulation and what's been pointed to as
[36:31] anti business policy. We had some really interesting
[36:34] discussions with UK company founders and investors who have
[36:40] been expressing really unprecedented bleakness about
[36:43] the UK life science environments.
[36:46] Lastly, it's a tough place to develop and sell drugs.
[36:50] And there's also the pull factor with Trump administration
[36:52] policies pulling companies to make manufacturing commitments
[36:56] in the US. So, you know, I think let's
[36:58] split this discussion into two. The first part of it is the UK
[37:02] drug pricing model and some of the US policy stuff around
[37:05] manufacturing. And then the second, which we
[37:07] can do following that, is this idea of the UK and why it hasn't
[37:13] been able to be a biotech hub. Like what, what's what's
[37:16] missing? So let's start with the the
[37:18] first one and maybe Josh, you can talk about the the UK drug
[37:22] pricing model and and some of the policy stuff.
[37:26] Yeah, I mean, they're, they're at the extreme end of
[37:28] conservatism in terms of paying for, for value when it comes to
[37:33] to innovation. I think that the challenge of
[37:35] those that there, there's a reason that innovation is, is
[37:38] price to size it is and that is to us incentivize more
[37:41] innovation. And it's, it's interesting
[37:45] because right you, you point out UK really hasn't hit their
[37:48] stride when it comes to to bio innovation.
[37:51] But on the other hand, they're, they're not interested, right?
[37:54] I mean, they're, they, they've made that very clear by by
[37:58] having the nice effort to really limit the amount that they spend
[38:04] on, on drugs and as such, the amount that they're willing to
[38:07] commit to innovation. And it's becoming a serious
[38:10] issue, as we know now with the US, you know, looking for other
[38:16] companies to start paying their fair share for the innovation
[38:20] that they do benefit from. You know, it, it, it, there are
[38:25] all sorts of, you know, factors here, including China in
[38:29] particular as a country that that likely is willing to
[38:33] provide lower source innovation for the globe.
[38:37] China's not quite ready to do it broad scale like the US has
[38:40] been, you know, building over the last number of of decades.
[38:45] But there are a lot of colliding forces at play when it comes to
[38:49] to drug price and drug spend. But it's certainly not
[38:51] unreasonable to ask countries who are going to benefit from
[38:55] the innovation to pay their fair share.
[38:56] And it, it gets into the broader framework as well, like like
[39:00] Iser's framework for, for how to ascribe value to, to drugs.
[39:05] And at least from, you know, my perspective, which I think is a
[39:08] little bit different than than others might have the, the
[39:12] question isn't around value, right.
[39:14] But the question is what's the right framework of pricing to
[39:18] incentivize more innovation? Because that's really the only
[39:23] justification for these high drug prices.
[39:25] And I see very little of the very few of the policy makers,
[39:29] the think tanks, the Icers of the world, the nicest of the
[39:33] world, ever sit down and talk to investors or analysts who
[39:39] ultimately are the ones that are that are going to be making the
[39:42] the, the decision to allocate capital to new R&D outside of,
[39:46] you know, kind of the realm of profitable biopharma companies.
[39:51] But that's really all that matters, right?
[39:52] If you create a system that doesn't reward innovation,
[39:55] there's going to be no innovation.
[39:56] And if you create a system that does, there will be.
[39:59] And if you create a system that over incentivizes innovation
[40:02] will have too much innovation. But those that's not the lens.
[40:06] That you hear these drug price discussions ever, ever talked
[40:09] about, which I find a little frustrating.
[40:12] Can I just say first of all, I think you don't have to look
[40:14] that far back in history to see a lot of innovation coming out
[40:17] of the UK and obviously there's a few big pharma companies who
[40:19] have done a lot of work there. Cambridge is still a biotech
[40:21] hub. Like I don't know that it's
[40:24] totally clear. Oxford too.
[40:25] I don't know that it's totally clear what this read there.
[40:28] I also just to me, and I'm not close to any of these decisions,
[40:31] this looks a little bit like the the UK as a place is just
[40:36] getting a little bit unlucky in a game of geopolitical chess in
[40:39] part which is it's true that drug prices are comparatively
[40:42] low there. They're not that much lower than
[40:44] other important places in Europe, but it's just they are
[40:48] the intersection of a relatively small commercial market where
[40:53] investments had been promised. And I feel like part of what
[40:56] most of Big Pharma is trying to do is to prove to the Trump
[41:01] administration that the US is getting something in exchange
[41:05] for the bargain that is like critically financial important
[41:08] to them. And nothing speaks louder in the
[41:11] current political moment than like shifting dollars of
[41:14] investment, especially big some dollars of investment.
[41:17] And I feel like the concentrated group of this activity is as
[41:20] much a signal to the US as it is to the UK.
[41:23] Yeah. I mean, unfortunately I don't, I
[41:26] agree with you on that point, although I think luck has
[41:29] nothing to do with this. I just want to go back to Josh's
[41:32] point that outside of drug pricing, the UK has done very
[41:37] minimal to understand what what type of environment to create,
[41:43] to incentivize, to incentivize the company builds and to
[41:49] incentivize investment and to build real innovation hubs.
[41:53] So when we say that and I've spent quite some time and I do
[41:56] want to say a call out that I have been on boards, for example
[42:00] on a board of App Cam, which is a true outstanding company that
[42:05] was just bought by Danaher. That's an outlier.
[42:08] I'm on another board of a private company called CLM,
[42:11] amazing British company that's also an outlier.
[42:14] Other than those two and a few, handful of others have a
[42:18] challenging environment that again, drug pricing is one
[42:22] thing, but environment that creates everything from the
[42:26] regulation of how boards are structured to how to, to the
[42:32] investment environment, to having incentives to investors,
[42:36] to also having incentives to company founders and company
[42:41] builders, everything from tax incentives to how boards and
[42:45] companies are structured. So the UK has a significant
[42:49] issue. And I would love to also hear,
[42:52] Daphne, your thoughts. I know, you know, you've built a
[42:54] company yourself that what that is on the UK Stock Exchange.
[42:59] I mean, what are your thoughts? And I'll and then I'll, you
[43:02] know, happy to also chime in edition of the issue with the
[43:05] biotech hubs in the UK. And by the way, it's not a
[43:08] recent phenomenon. They've had issues going years,
[43:12] years back. Yeah, absolutely.
[43:14] And and I'm also, I'll note that Mikhail Preminger just joined us
[43:19] from the audience recently was AJ and J and before that she ran
[43:22] the Harvard tech licensing offices and knows a lot about
[43:25] biotech hubs. So we'll, we'll hear from her as
[43:28] well after, after I I say a few words and then maybe Luba, I
[43:32] think you wanted to comment. So I think that you make a great
[43:35] point about these, you know, these incentives for business.
[43:39] So like the way I look at it is a lot of regulation in the UK is
[43:43] around protecting downside as opposed to incentivizing upside.
[43:48] And that you see that across the board.
[43:50] So for example, you know, they have you talked about boards.
[43:54] Boards are, are they don't they frown upon board members having
[43:58] shares in the company where you think like that would align
[44:01] interests, But you know, they worry about conflicts of
[44:04] interest, which doesn't really make a lot of sense.
[44:06] So there's a lot of this regulation that is around
[44:09] protecting and I think that's important.
[44:11] But the problem is they, they've missed the upside part.
[44:14] They have this UK takeover panel, which is meant to protect
[44:18] UK investors. But I, I would guess that that
[44:20] panel has probably lost investors in the UK billions of
[44:24] dollars because of the way that they, you know, they were kind
[44:27] of over concern about, you know, the ability to deals and, you
[44:33] know, whether companies will leave the UK at what it ends up
[44:36] doing is it really does make it less interesting for investors
[44:39] there. But I do think, you know, it's,
[44:42] it's really interesting because there is such great science and
[44:45] there's great entrepreneurs and there's great early stage
[44:47] investors. And so this, this idea of the
[44:49] over regulation and the tax incentives and, you know, all of
[44:54] those things I think have really been holding back the ability to
[44:57] build companies there. And of course for the, the stock
[45:01] market there is, is also very challenging.
[45:03] So you know, we, for example, we raised money we listed on the
[45:08] main market, not on the AIM, raised about $200 million in an
[45:11] IPO. And, you know, there's some
[45:14] amazing, very smart investors there that, you know, the, the
[45:19] problem though, is that the UK government is not really
[45:21] incentivizing investment in the UK.
[45:25] But I, I think it's, it's a really interesting question of
[45:28] like what, what are the elements that create these biotech hubs
[45:31] like Boston, Cambridge and, and for example, San Francisco?
[45:36] And I'd love to hear more from you, Luba and from Michael on
[45:39] that point. Yeah, absolutely.
[45:41] And you know, on, as you know also I'm on the board of Mass
[45:44] BIOS. So we talk about this quite a
[45:46] bit. And we also meet with similar
[45:49] hubs across really the world, including in Basel and in
[45:53] Cambridge and Oxford and, and, and in the UK.
[45:58] And the of course, science is number 1 and UK has it and
[46:02] they're in their hubs #2 is access to capital.
[46:07] So #3 is often being again accessible to, to hospitals,
[46:15] being accessible to amazing talent of people that don't just
[46:20] start up companies, but they're able to build companies and
[46:23] scale companies. And not just the CEO function,
[46:26] but a CFO and other functions. I can tell you looking at the UK
[46:29] companies, I, I think that there needs to be additional training
[46:33] just because of the, the level, the regulatory level and how
[46:37] companies are run in the UK. There aren't that many CFO and
[46:42] financial level people that that can go and be part of a startup
[46:48] because they think very differently.
[46:50] They think in a way that is not hopeful to to start up in the
[46:54] UK. So yes, there are there's a lot
[46:57] of talent in the United Kingdom, which is something that you need
[46:59] is something that we have here in Boston and multi across
[47:05] multiple different areas. So everything from science to
[47:08] law to business to finance, we have that.
[47:13] But a lot of that talent is not actually trained to startup
[47:18] companies or be in a cross functional startup environment
[47:22] for and build a company for growth.
[47:24] So that is certainly one area for training where the UK needs
[47:29] help and what makes a hub very successful.
[47:34] And, you know, and I think if the government was open to
[47:38] again, tone down the regulation and incentivize investors and
[47:43] incentivize talent that can go into the start-ups, it would be
[47:48] a whole different world for the UK.
[47:50] Mikhal, I would love to think to know what you think.
[47:52] I know you've been in this for for a long, long time.
[47:55] Yes, of course and, and and happy to share the the
[47:59] experience of serving on the Mass Bio board with you.
[48:02] Maybe I'll add the number 4 to your list and #4 is the, is the
[48:07] presence of pharma companies in the same environment as we talk
[48:13] about the Cambridge ecosystem and the, the idea that you can
[48:17] very easily as a young company, do what we call the walk.
[48:23] And, and within 25 minutes visit every pharma company and get the
[48:30] access to the expertise and the understanding of what will
[48:33] happen downstream from where you are right now.
[48:35] And what regulatory and development considerations you
[48:39] may want to incorporate into your plan early on.
[48:42] And you know, the choice of first indication, all of those
[48:44] amazing things and and of course, the cross festilization
[48:47] in terms of talent. And I think that for the UK to
[48:53] to alienate and and and lose, you know, presence of, of big
[48:58] pharma in that ecosystem, which is already also very
[49:02] distributed. I mean, we, you know, we do have
[49:04] the Golden Triangle in, in Cambridge, Oxford, but it is, it
[49:09] is a very different phenotype of, of an ecosystem and yet
[49:14] really amazing opportunities. I can say just from the J&J
[49:18] experience. J&J has an Innovation Center in
[49:23] London, which is serving all of Europe.
[49:26] But definitely the, the UK ecosystem is, is top, a top
[49:33] performer there in terms of early stage companies and again,
[49:36] the challenges of growing and, and so on.
[49:39] You, you already mentioned, but I wanted to take us back to
[49:42] Cambridge and, and the Massachusetts ecosystem and
[49:46] actually highlight an article or a white paper that Peter
[49:52] Kalchinsky wrote this week about the Massachusetts paradox.
[49:58] And he's highlighting his concern about an environment in
[50:03] which, you know, clearly there's a lot of support for biotech in,
[50:08] in Massachusetts, but also it is home to some of the most
[50:12] aggressive, let's say, politicians and representatives
[50:18] who are actually pushing policies at the, at the federal
[50:22] level that are very harmful to, to biotech and biopharma in
[50:26] general. And, and he's actually, you
[50:30] know, it is a 12,000 word article that he's encouraging
[50:34] each one of us to, to read because it includes both a
[50:38] description of, of the issue and what we can do about it as, as
[50:43] an industry. And, and it, it is a, it is a
[50:46] test case, but really with, with inspiration, I think for any,
[50:51] any ecosystem around the globe. Because we can ask ourselves,
[50:56] you know, if if in Massachusetts, where we are
[51:00] responsible for so much of the economic growth and prosperity,
[51:06] we are kind of still unable to advocate and to get our
[51:11] representatives to support us, you know, how could any other
[51:15] ecosystem expect to do so? So I just, I just want to
[51:19] encourage people to actually take a look at it.
[51:20] I think it is fascinating. It's important for us to be
[51:23] educated about those topics. And maybe we can take one of the
[51:28] next step about a hangout sessions to dig in once people
[51:33] have read it. Yeah, we can share a link to
[51:36] that. Yeah, I'm going to put a link
[51:39] right now, OK, at the chat. Yeah, that's great.
[51:41] OK, So we're almost at the top of the hour and I know that we
[51:45] wanted to touch on a few other policy updates.
[51:48] Josh, do you want to hit real quick, I think the J&J pricing
[51:53] announcement on their bladder cancer drug and impact on CG
[51:57] oncology, HHS and ACIP? Yeah, a bunch going on to cover
[52:02] quickly. J&J got approval of their tier
[52:05] 200 gemcitabine eluding pretzel in Lexo price pretty pretty high
[52:11] first year of therapy for for a full course would be close to
[52:15] 750,000 that that falls to about 150,000 in the second year
[52:20] because the frequency of administration of the therapy
[52:24] falls in the in the second year. But just kind of another signal
[52:27] in terms of the direction that that drug prices can continue to
[52:30] head on HHS. There was the HELP committee
[52:36] meeting that that brought in Doctor Menarez to talk about her
[52:43] firing from, from head of CDC. I would say it was maybe like 4
[52:49] to 1 balance in terms of those who are who are really very
[52:52] concerned about the direction that that CDC is headed with
[52:57] leadership relative to the the couple of Republican senators.
[53:02] I think you're their their questions more towards Doctor
[53:07] Maneras and her own integrity, which would seems to be fairly
[53:10] impeachable. So we'll we'll see how, you
[53:14] know, what direction this this heads in there certainly
[53:17] increasing push back against RF KS decision making and policies.
[53:24] And that kind of dovetails into the the ACIP meetings that was
[53:27] going on yesterday. I haven't been able to to watch
[53:30] as much of it today, but I don't know, like, you know, it's a
[53:35] very new ACIP committee composition.
[53:40] You know that they're clearly, many of them are approaching
[53:43] questions around vaccines with far more caution than the prior
[53:48] ACIP committee meeting. I think the biggest, the biggest
[53:50] challenge is that there's just not perfect data to answer the
[53:56] myriad of questions that have been raised about vaccines and
[54:00] vaccine policies. So, you know, a lot of vaccine
[54:03] policy comes down to expert judgement and we've replaced the
[54:06] very pro vaccine and pro science panel with a group that, you
[54:12] know, we're we're fairly defensive about being
[54:14] characterized as as anti vaccine.
[54:17] Many of them are asking reasonable questions around
[54:21] safety, etcetera. I mean, it did illustrate their,
[54:24] their lack of expertise in the subject matter and at times made
[54:28] for some very cringy moments. But I think the big, the big
[54:32] challenge here is that is that a lot of the discussions are out
[54:35] of the realm of, of where data can clearly illustrate.
[54:38] And we're, we're, you know, everyone has to extrapolate
[54:42] based on the available data. And some are more comfortable
[54:45] extrapolating favorably. Others are very uncomfortable
[54:48] extrapolating favourably. And that's just creating a lot
[54:51] of noise, confusion, uncertainty.
[54:55] It's it's not a great look, but it but I guess from some lenses
[54:59] it's at least an understandable look.
[55:03] Yeah, it's interesting because the quality of the advisors is
[55:07] also going to have an impact. And I've been a little bit
[55:10] disappointed not even, you know, not just with regard to vaccine,
[55:15] but in other areas that the advisors that they're bringing
[55:18] in, you know, they they have conflicts.
[55:21] They they're not pharma companies, they're not pharma
[55:24] representatives, but they have their own personal conflicts
[55:27] and, and I think that's that's a real problem.
[55:30] Anybody else have comments on the policy points that Josh just
[55:35] touched on before we wrap up the show?
[55:43] OK. So let's just go around and see
[55:45] if people have any closing remarks.
[55:47] I mean, I think in summary this, it feels like maybe there's some
[55:52] green shoots people are, are feeling more optimistic about
[55:55] biotech 1 missing pieces. The public markets, I mean the
[55:59] follow ONS are strong, but not really IP OS yet.
[56:03] But they, you know, 1 exception last week, which was, was I
[56:05] think OK, but seems like sentiment has improved
[56:10] substantially since our lows of April.
[56:13] Love to hear from the others and then we'll wrap up the the
[56:16] session. I would just add biotech looks
[56:19] like it actually has the makings of a business model and that's
[56:22] that's what it's going to take for the sector to thrive from
[56:24] here. One of the main reasons this is
[56:31] a fun industry to be in is because ultimately you run
[56:35] experiments and generate data and it matters for patients.
[56:37] And so that's, that's what dominated my week is just it's,
[56:40] it's exciting to be a part of that.
[56:42] And I feel great for what we've delivered for the matter my site
[56:45] as patients and what I hope that means long term.
[56:46] So that that has painted my week with optimism and just is a is a
[56:49] fun reminder of of why we do what we do.
[56:54] Yeah, I couldn't agree more. I think it's I think there's
[56:56] optimistic outlook and we all we all are quite optimistic.
[57:00] One of the things actually, when we talked about the.
[57:02] Hubs, I was going to mention one that the one thing that we have
[57:06] here in Boston, also in California is we are hyper
[57:10] optimistic even when the fundamentals are not 100% there.
[57:14] And that's what drives innovation and that's what
[57:17] drives change for patients. Matt, a similar boat as as you
[57:22] are right now looking into how our patients are doing and are
[57:26] doing so well in our trial. And it's that's what's important
[57:31] ultimately. Yeah, if if it.
[57:35] Wasn't, you know, for the optimism none of these drugs
[57:37] would ever get developed. I mean, I think all of us are
[57:40] are really focused on that on on developing new medicines for
[57:43] patients and that optimism over years and years and very
[57:48] challenging circumstances is what enables us to deliver these
[57:52] new medicines. So yeah, I think it's a very
[57:55] important. Piece of it.
[57:57] Well, anyway, thank you all for for.
[57:59] Joining today and McCall for jumping up from the audience.
[58:03] I hope you all have a wonderful weekend and thank you for
[58:06] joining us on Biotech Hangout. We'll see you next week.

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.