Last Week Tonight in BioPharma: April 11th - April 17th
Game-changer in pancreatic cancer, RFK peptide shenanigans are back, a huge GLP-1 IPO, Lilly buying another in vivo CAR-T (?) and much more
We’re back for the fourth edition of Last Week Tonight in BioPharma (LWTB)!
In case you’re new, here is what I am trying to do with this series:
A short recap of the most interesting stories from the past week with strategic insights to get you ready for your Monday meetings.
Up to 3 key events per category:
Press Release Decoder: going beyond the company speak, reading between the lines, thinking about what isn’t being said, to illustrate the strategic implications of a company’s moves that don’t make it into the press release
Connecting the Dots: looking at stories that are either about the macro or from the mainstream news and how they may impact BioPharma
Follow the Money: quick takes on some key deals that were struck and what they mean for those companies, their competitors, or the sector at-large
Free to all subscriber levels! Although if you like my free content and have $8/month to spare (or expense to your company), I think you’ll love the deeper analyses my paid subscribers get. You can upgrade at any time by clicking the button below.
And with that, let’s get into what happened this past week.
📡 PRESS RELEASE DECODER
What the press releases actually mean
Revolution Medicines Drops a Landmark Pancreatic Cancer Dataset — Then Raises $2 Billion Before the Ink Is Dry
📅 Date: April 13, 2026 | 🏢 Company: Revolution Medicines | 💊 Drug/Asset: Daraxonrasib (RMC-6236), multi-selective RAS(ON) inhibitor | 🏷️ Event Type: Phase 3 Data Readout
Revolution Medicines reported topline results from the Phase 3 RASolute 302 trial of daraxonrasib in previously treated metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Median overall survival was 13.2 months on daraxonrasib versus 6.7 months on standard chemotherapy — a hazard ratio of 0.40 (p<0.0001). The trial met all primary and key secondary endpoints, including PFS and OS in both the RAS G12 mutation population and the full intent-to-treat population. Safety was manageable with no new signals. RVMD 0.00%↑ intends to file an NDA under a Commissioner’s National Priority Voucher (CNPV) and will present detailed results at ASCO 2026. Two days later, the company priced a concurrent upsized offering: $1.5B in common stock at $142/share plus $500M in convertible notes due 2033 (0.50% coupon, ~40% conversion premium), totaling $2.0B in gross proceeds.
BPS Take: What an incredible data readout. KRAS was thought to be an untouchable target for the longest time, but the RVMD story is why it’s important for science to keep getting funded even in areas that seem too daunting. A 60% survival benefit in 2L pancreatic cancer, notoriously one of the most devastating and hard to treat cancers, is truly remarkable. No doubt about it, this drug is going to get the red carpet treatment all the way to approval. With the CNPV in tow, this might end up being one of the shortest FDA reviews ever.
Now for the business side of the equation. As of this writing, RVMD is sitting at roughly $31B market cap. Remember back in January, there were rumors swirling about AbbVie ABBV 0.00%↑ buying them (which never made sense, because I don’t think they had the cash) and Merck MRK 0.00%↑ wanting to buy them (which made a ton of sense). RVMD wanted $30B at the time and there were only a couple companies who had the war chest to pull the trigger on something that big. With the lead asset now being pretty much entirely de-risked, the company sits at the very valuation the were looking for in January.
If we guesstimate (conservatively) $5B-$7B in peak sales for darax and consider its mostly de-risked and likely to have a strong launch, just darax alone gets you to anywhere between $25B - $35B in value before considering its platform and pipeline. Realistically a “fair” buyout number would have to be, I dunno, maybe $40B-$45B depending on how competitive a process it is? The reality is that that might be too big an acquisition for any Big Pharma to swallow, and I think the RVMD folks are telling you that they know that.
Within 48 hours of dropping the data, RVMD priced a $2B capital raise — upsized from the originally announced $1B. The proceeds are earmarked for general corporate purposes including commercial launch preparation and the four ongoing Phase 3 daraxonrasib programs (three in PDAC, one in NSCLC). This is a company that already had $500M coming from Royalty Pharma through a pre-approval funding deal signed in June 2025, and they’re now stacking another $2B on top. Rest assured, they are preparing to commercialize this drug themselves and grow into a BioPharma middleweight. I predicted RVMD would be bought in my acquisitions piece earlier in the year, but now I just don’t see it happening anymore. Instead, RVMD is going to grow and become a potential acquirer themselves, redeploying darax cash flows to continue buildout a strong pipeline of target anti-cancer treatments.
And guess what? This is good for the sector. Not every oncology darling that hits a home run needs to be swallowed up by the big fish. We’re seeing more deals from the mid-size players lately, which means more commercial scalers that can take small biotech’s innovations and deliver them to patients.
Allogene’s Big Swing Starts Paying Off: Cema-Cel MRD Data Clears Futility in First-Line DLBCL
📅 Date: April 13, 2026 | 🏥 Company: Allogene Therapeutics | 💊 Drug/Asset: Cemacabtagene ansegedleucel (cema-cel), allogeneic CD19 CAR-T | 📦 Event Type: Phase 3 Pivotal Interim Futility Analysis
Allogene ALLO 0.00%↑ reported data from the planned interim futility analysis of the pivotal Phase 2 ALPHA3 trial evaluating cema-cel as first-line consolidation therapy in high-risk large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). At the protocol-defined cutoff (first 24 patients randomized, 12 per arm, Day 45 MRD assessment), 58.3% (7/12) of cema-cel patients achieved MRD negativity versus 16.7% (2/12) in the observation arm — a 41.6 percentage-point absolute difference, well above the 25-30% threshold Allogene considered clinically meaningful based on published literature. Plasma ctDNA dropped a median of 97.7% from baseline in the cema-cel arm versus a 26.6% median increase in the observation arm. Safety was clean: zero CRS, zero ICANS, zero GvHD, no treatment-related SAEs, and no treatment-related hospitalizations. Ten of twelve cema-cel patients were managed entirely outpatient. Community cancer centers — some with no prior CAR-T experience — accounted for approximately 33% of screening activity and infusions. The trial is enrolling across 60+ sites, targeting ~220 patients. Enrollment completion is expected by year-end 2027, with an interim EFS analysis anticipated mid-2027 and primary EFS in mid-2028.
Separately, Allogene priced a public offering on April 14 of 87.5M shares at $2.00/share, with the underwriters’ over allotment fully exercised, bringing the total raise to $200.4M in gross proceeds. The stock had spiked from the low $2s to $4.46 on the data release before the offering announcement pulled it back. At a market cap of roughly $660-740M, the dilution is significant — but the cash extends their runway to the primary EFS readout in mid-2028.
BPS Take: A lot of people have written off allo’ CAR-T. I get it, the technology has been “almost there” for years and the clinical track record has been spotty. But this company deserves enormous credit for the trial they chose to run. Every other allo’ CAR-T company targeting DLBCL went to the obvious, safe places: 3L+ post-CD19 CAR-T, then 2L but randomized against transplant, or pivoted into autoimmune disease. Allogene leapfrogged all of that and went straight to first-line consolidation — treating high-risk patients right after they finish frontline chemo, before they’ve relapsed, using MRD assessment as the guiding light. That’s a big risk, as they are both looking to move ahead of well-established auto’ CAR-T and also change the way DLBCL is treated.
The safety data here may actually be more important than the efficacy signal. The reason CAR-T has been stuck in academic medical centers is because of toxicity and logistics. CRS and ICANS can require ICU-level monitoring. Autologous manufacturing takes 3-6 weeks per patient. Cema-cel showed zero CRS, zero ICANS, outpatient management, and delivery at community centers with no prior CAR-T experience. If that holds, it removes two big barriers to CAR-T adoptions and enables allo’ CAR-T to compete in a community setting where very few auto’ CAR-Ts are even being administered.
The opportunity behind what Allogene is pushing is clear, but the road ahead is not without major hurdles. Neither MRD testing nor consolidation therapy are standard practice in LBCL today. However, of all types of docs, oncologists are some of the quickest to change when data supports it. The hard part is still ahead, event free survival is the real endpoint. While the early MRD data looks good, it is still just n=24 patients. But the directionality, combined with that safety profile, is exactly what the field needed to see to take allo’ CAR-T seriously again. As for the $200M raise at $2.00 — painful dilution, but it gets them to the pivotal readout. That’s the only thing that matters right now. It’s a bold strategy. Let’s see if it pays off for them.
Replimune Lays Off 63 After Second FDA CRL for RP1; CEO Charges “The System Failed” Patients
📅 Date: April 13, 2026 (layoffs disclosed; CRL issued April 10) | 🏢 Company: Replimune | 💊 Drug/Asset: RP1 / vusolimogene oderparepvec + nivolumab | 🏷️ Event Type: CRL Consequence — Layoffs + Regulatory Flashpoint
THE FACTS:
Following the FDA issuing a second CRL last week, Replimune REPL 0.00%↑ disclosed 63 layoffs via Massachusetts WARN filing effective through April 2026. CEO Sushil Patel publicly stated the company lacks sufficient cash to advance RP1 further without accelerated approval. Patel charged “the system failed” patients — framing the CRL as a regulatory policy failure, not a data failure. FDA’s CRL was publicly released under Commissioner Makary’s new real-time CRL transparency policy (part of a batch of 89 previously unpublished CRLs).The case sparked a WSJ opinion piece calling for FDA regulatory flexibility; a BioSpace analysis countered that many Americans actually support stricter FDA standards. Cash-constrained; path forward for RP1 without AA pathway highly uncertain
BPS’ Take: We discussed the CRL in last week’s LWTB, so I won’t rehash that analysis. It’s always painful to see layoffs in our sector, since we know how hard people work to actualize new scientific ideas. I’m hopeful the Replimune folks who are now without a home can find a new company to join soon. As for the CEO, I think his comments are a political move to point blame at an already controversial and disappointing FDA leadership team, and divert some blame for the fact that there were clear flaws in how data were collected in their study. I worry about the precedence this may set though. When Moderna’s flu vaccine was denied by this FDA, their CEO also took to the media to point the blame at regulators. It may honestly be warranted, given how capricious this FDA has been, but I hope this is just a one-term thing and we don’t get int he habit of playing politics and Spin City with the FDA. Drugs have a better chance of getting approved when industry and regulators can work constructively with one another.
🌐 CONNECTING THE DOTS
When the outside world meets biopharma
Big Tech Moves Into the Lab — And Big Pharma Moves Into Big Tech
📅 Date: April 14-16, 2026 | 🏥 Companies: Novartis / Anthropic, Novo Nordisk / OpenAI, Amazon Web Services | 💊 Topic: AI-Pharma Convergence | 📦 Event Type: Board Appointment, Strategic Partnership, Platform Launch
Three stories dropped this week symbolizing the convergence between BioPharma and Tech worlds.
Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan joined Anthropic’s board of directors on April 14. Anthropic is the developer of the Claude AI model and describes itself as an AI safety and research company. Narasimhan said in a statement that “AI is accelerating solutions to some of the hardest scientific challenges, from deepening our understanding of disease biology to designing better medicines.” Novartis has existing AI partnerships with Alphabet’s Isomorphic Labs (AlphaFold-based small molecule discovery), Schrödinger, Generate:Biomedicines, and Relation Therapeutics. Narasimhan has publicly stated Novartis’s goal of halving the target-to-clinic timeline from four years to two. The appointment comes while the Trump administration has banned Anthropic’s Claude across the federal government, including HHS. Novartis declined to comment on potential political repercussions.
Novo Nordisk announced a strategic partnership with OpenAI to integrate AI across discovery, manufacturing, and commercial operations. Initial pilots are underway across R&D, manufacturing, and commercial units, with broader rollout planned through 2026. The partnership includes workforce training programs to increase AI literacy across Novo’s global organization. Novo’s existing AI partnerships include Valo Health (up to 20 programs in obesity, T2D, and CV disease), NVIDIA and Denmark’s DCAI (sovereign AI supercomputer for drug discovery), and Microsoft Research (internal AI platform for research, regulatory, and trial design). OpenAI has also signed pharma collaborations with Sanofi/Formation Bio, Thermo Fisher, Moderna, and Eli Lilly.
Amazon Web Services launched Amazon Bio Discovery (ABD), a drug discovery platform integrating 40+ AI biological foundation models with wet-lab CRO partners (Ginkgo Bioworks, Twist Bioscience, A-Alpha Bio). The platform uses a four-stage “lab-in-the-loop” process: in silico workflow building, assistant-led experimental design, computational result analysis, and transfer of top candidates to CRO wet labs for validation. Users can access the AI model library, upload custom models, or use third-party tools. ABD is being tested at Bayer, the Broad Institute, Voyager Therapeutics, and Memorial Sloan Kettering, where a project generated 100,000 antibody candidates sent for wet-lab testing in a matter of weeks. AWS currently provides cloud services to 19 of the top 20 pharma companies.
BPS Take: BioPharma wants to integrate AI/Tech just as much as AI/Tech wants to integrate into BioPharma. It could end up being quite a fruitful partnership if done right. As I’ve written in a past post, I worry about the tech folks hijacking the messaging in this convergence space, as they have a tendency to overpromise and underdeliver. Having someone like Narasimhan on the board of the “ethical AI company” may limit some of that hype speak. Of all the Big Pharma CEOs I think he and Dave Ricks from Lilly are probably the two best communicators, so it’s a sharp pick by Anthropic.
From the Tech/AI side, this continues down a trend of moving into hard/deep tech sort of spaces where AI can add more value in the long-run. The end of most enterprise software may be within view given how quickly AI coding agents have progressed. To meet the trillion dollar valuations some of these AI companies hold, they’ll need to apply the intelligence they are developing to harder to solve problems, like biology. What I would like to see the investors and journalists do is keep both the Big Pharma companies and AI companies accountable on metrics of progress when these sorts of deals/launches are announced. I hope some junior equity analyst and JP Morgan checks in a year from now with Novo’s CEO and asks them to show how their partnership with OpenAI has materially and countably added value to Novo’s business. There is clear upside to be had in making our drug companies more AI-native, but I imagine more of these deals will happen, and we need to know which ones are working and which ones aren’t and why. If we’re going to really enable AI to help us make progress building the next generation of new drugs, these BioPharma-AI partnerships need to be held to a higher standard or else they just become a “cool” press release.
RFK’s Peptide Push: Removing Safety Guardrails Is Not the Same as “Restoring Access”
📅 Date: April 2026 | 🏥 Agency: HHS / FDA | 💊 Topic: Category 2 Peptide Reclassification (BPC-157, Thymosin beta-4 fragment, Melanotan II, Ibutamoren, 8 others) | 📦 Event Type: Regulatory / Policy Action
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that 12 peptides will be removed from the FDA’s Category 2 list (”Bulk Drug Substances that Raise Significant Safety Risks”) after nominators withdrew them. The affected substances include BPC-157, Thymosin beta-4 fragment (LKKTETQ), Epitalon, GHK-Cu (injectable), MOTS-c, DSIP (Emideltide), Dihexa Acetate, Ibutamoren Mesylate, Melanotan II, KPV, Semax, and Cathelicidin LL-37. The peptides will be brought before the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee (PCAC) at its next two meetings beginning in July for evaluation. Kennedy framed the move as “restoring regulated access” and shifting demand away from a black market that emerged after the Biden FDA placed these substances in Category 2 in September 2023.
The framing requires context. Removing peptides from Category 2 does not place them on Category 1 (substances eligible for compounding). There needs to be a committee ruling and/or new FDA regulatory action to formally place these peptides on the Category 1 list. Each substance will require efficacy data and clinical justification before PCAC. The most prominent substance on the list, BPC-157, has been aggressively marketed for tissue repair, gut health, and recovery in wellness circles, but the human evidence base is effectively nonexistent. Nearly all published data comes from animal studies, predominantly from a single research group. There are no completed randomized controlled trials in humans. Other compounds on the list include Melanotan II (a tanning peptide with case reports of melanoma promotion), Ibutamoren (a growth hormone secretagogue with insulin resistance concerns), and Dihexa (a cognitive-enhancement peptide with minimal human safety data).
BPS Take: There’s a legitimate argument that the 2023 Category 2 action was handled clumsily and did push some demand to unregulated black markets. That part of Kennedy’s framing is fair. However, the solution to bad regulation is better regulation, not removal of safety guardrails under the banner of “following the science.” The irony of that phrase here is thick, given that the science for most of these peptides in humans barely exists. The PCAC review is the right next step, but only if it’s conducted with actual clinical rigor and not predetermined political outcomes. If you’re a patient considering these compounds, understand that “removed from the danger list” does not mean “proven safe and effective.” Category 2 removal is not Category 1 approval. These substances still lack the clinical evidence that every other drug approved in the US is required to produce before reaching patients.
💰 FOLLOW THE MONEY
Deals, dollars, and what they signal
UCB Acquires Neurona Therapeutics for Up to $1.15 Billion, Making a Generational Bet on Interneuron Cell Therapy for Drug-Resistant Epilepsy
📅 Date: April 17, 2026 | 🏢 Company: UCB / Neurona Therapeutics | 💊 Drug/Asset: NRTX-1001, GABAergic interneuron cell therapy (stem-cell derived) | 🏷️ Event Type: M&A Acquisition
UCB announced an agreement to acquire privately held Neurona Therapeutics for $650 million upfront plus up to $500 million in development and commercial milestones, totaling up to $1.15 billion. The deal is expected to close by end of Q2 2026. The acquired asset is NRTX-1001 — a GABAergic interneuron cell therapy derived from pluripotent stem cells, designed as a one-time surgical implant for patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. The specific indication in clinical development is drug-resistant mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (mTLE), both unilateral and bilateral, with and without mesial temporal sclerosis (MTS). In a clinical update released April 8, Neurona reported Phase 1/2 data showing a 92% median reduction in disabling seizures during the efficacy endpoint period. The mechanism involves transplanting stem cell-derived GABAergic interneurons into seizure-generating brain regions to restore long-term inhibitory GABA tone — a one-time intervention concept targeting the underlying interneuron deficit in drug-resistant epilepsy. UCB framed the deal as a strategic expansion into regenerative medicine, building on its 30-year heritage in epilepsy (Vimpat, Briviact).
BPS Take: Hey hey! How about that?! A Cell Therapy acquisition! Not quite the CAR/TCR-T deals of the past, but folks like me who wear the battle scars from this world should rejoice.
It’s easy to forget how big a company UCB is. They sit at roughly $59B and are a rather quiet middleweight. This deal fits right into UCB’s epilepsy specialty, an area that really does not have a ton of major players focusing-in on it (Eisai and Jazz come to mind). UCB now has a potentially curative approach to go alongside many more chronic treatments it offers, like VIMPAT and BRIVIACT that face generic erosion. UCB is probably coming to terms with how marketing this drug probably changes their business model a bit. The NRTX-1001 cells require a surgery to implant and a robust cell therapy manufacturing infrastructure after all. Epilepsy is an interesting area in drug development too, as you compete with many med device options (mostly implants) that look to combat seizures as well. This will be an interesting one to follow in terms of price and launch as UCB gets going with the commercial roll out.
Kailera Therapeutics Prices $625M IPO — Largest-Ever US Biopharma IPO — Surges 63% on Day One
📅 Date: April 16-17, 2026 | 🏢 Company: Kailera Therapeutics | 💊 Drug/Asset: Ribupatide (KAI-9531), GLP-1/GIP injectable dual agonist (Phase 3) + oral GLP-1 pipeline | 🏷️ Event Type: IPO / Financing
Kailera Therapeutics priced its IPO at $16 per share, upsized from an initial $500M target to approximately 39.1 million shares for gross proceeds of $625 million — confirmed as the largest-ever US biopharma IPO by gross proceeds at pricing, surpassing Moderna’s 2018 record of $604 million. The stock surged 63% on its first day of trading on April 17, 2026, listed on Nasdaq under ticker KLRA. The company is led by CEO Ron Renaud, who previously led Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Translate Bio, and Cerevel Therapeutics. Kailera’s pipeline consists of clinical-stage obesity assets in-licensed from Hengrui Pharma (Shanghai). The lead asset, ribupatide, is an injectable GLP-1/GIP dual agonist currently in a global Phase 3 trial for obesity, with results expected in 2028. A second program, oral ribupatide, is in Phase 2b with results expected in 2027. Expected close of the offering is April 20, 2026.
BPS Take: This company is a classic China arbitrage play. There doing what Summit Therapeutics is doing with PD-1xVEGF, but for GLP-1s. However, unlike Summit, Kailera isn’t the first-comer to GLP-1s. They enter this space, with many other Big Pharma heavyweights already approved or in parallel Phase 3 studies. Given the current geopolitical environment (tariffs, China pharma scrutiny), how does this origin story affect long-term regulatory, IP, and commercial risk? Can a $625M Phase 3 obesity play compete with Novo and Lilly’s established commercial infrastructure, manufacturing scale, and brand recognition? It’s still not clear what their differentiation is vs. the market leader(s). Perhaps their oral GLP-1 nets out a superior product profile to the current offerings? It’s clear from the early sales data that customers prefer orals to injectables.
Nonetheless a $625M for a fast-follower GLP-1 approach may be the going rate for this market. We just aren’t used to seeing that big a numbers associate with a fast-follower. Kailera has three Phase 3 studies for KAI-9531 set to readout in 2028. I think we are very quickly approached peak-GLP-1, with many of the players who are committed to this space already having asset(s) in their pipeline. The “out” for Kailera might be dependent on existing programs from the Big Pharmas yet to launch in Obesity (e.g. Regeneron, Pfizer, Amgen, Roche, AstraZeneca etc.) running into hurdles, forcing them to look elsewhere to buy a backbone GLP-1 asset. Then again, Big Pharmas do get itchy trigger fingers, and if it starts to look like Kailera could accelerate someone’s time-to-market in the massive Obesity/T2DM space, one of that group could look to acquire them to “cut the line”.
🚨WEEKEND DEAL: Eli Lilly in Advanced Talks to Acquire Kelonia Therapeutics for >$2 Billion
📅 Date: April 19, 2026 (rumored, per WSJ/Reuters) 🏢 Acquirer: Eli Lilly ($LLY) → Target: Kelonia Therapeutics (private) 💰 Deal value: >$2 billion (structure TBD) 💊 Lead program: KLN-1010 — in vivo BCMA-directed CAR-T for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (Phase 1, inMMyCAR study) 🏷️ Event Type: rumored acquisition
Kelonia Therapeutics is a private biotech built around its iGPS® (in vivo Gene Programming and Stealthing) platform, which uses an engineered lentiviral vector particle with envelope modifications to generate CAR-T cells directly inside the patient’s body — bypassing the need for leukapheresis, ex vivo manufacturing, and lymphodepletion that define conventional CAR-T therapy. The lead program KLN-1010 targets BCMA on multiple myeloma cells and is the first anti-BCMA in vivo CAR-T program studied in a multi-center clinical trial. At ASH 2025 (Dec 9), Kelonia presented first-in-human data from the Phase 1 inMMyCAR study showing that all four dosed patients achieved MRD-negative responses, with CAR-T cells detected in both bone marrow and peripheral blood through month 3, predominantly composed of memory-phenotype T cells. No lymphodepletion chemotherapy was required. Treatment turnaround from consent to dosing was 13-18 days.
If the deal closes, it would be Lilly’s second in vivo CAR-T acquisition in 2026 following its $2.4 billion purchase of Orna Therapeutics (announced Feb 9, 2026). The two platforms are complementary: Orna uses LNP-delivered circular RNA to generate CAR-T cells transiently, positioned for autoimmune indications where temporary B-cell depletion may be sufficient; Kelonia uses lentiviral DNA integration for durable CAR-T cell persistence, positioned for hematologic malignancies and oncology where lasting anti-tumor immunity is required. Together, the two acquisitions would give Lilly both transient (RNA) and durable (DNA) in vivo CAR-T modalities across autoimmune and oncology.
The deal would also directly affect J&J, which signed a strategic in vivo CAR-T discovery collaboration with Kelonia in November 2025 and is already the dominant ex vivo CAR-T franchise holder via Carvykti (ciltacabtagene autoleucel).
BPS’ Take: $LLY is clearly signaling belief in in vivo CAR-T writ-large. With Orna (LNP/RNA-based) for autoimmune and now Kelonia (LVV/DNA-based) for heme/onc, Lilly is assembling both halves of the in vivo CAR-T toolkit from a position of strength afforded by GLP-1 cash flows. This is another low-risk/high-reward bet on novel science — the kind of deal Lilly can make when you’re generating the revenue they are and don’t have immediate pressure to fill patent cliffs. I called the Kelonia acquisition in my predictions post earlier this year. The J&J JNJ 0.00%↑ folks have to be disappointed if they lose out to Lilly on this one. J&J having an in vivo CAR-T play in Multiple Myeloma might be too important for them to let Lilly have Kelonia without a bidding war.
In vivo CAR-T has quickly become one of the most competitive spaces across Big Pharma players, despite little clinical maturity. Whose platform(s) will win? Differentiation between the multitude of companies in this space has largely been theoretical to date without substantive clinical data — but Kelonia’s 100% MRD-negativity rate in the inMMyCAR study, without lymphodepletion, is the kind of signal that makes a >$2B price tag look like a bargain if it holds up in larger cohorts.
Back next week with another edition of LWTB! Stay tuned and hope you have a strong start to your week!