
Celcuity's triple drug combo tops AstraZeneca's treatment in breast cancer trial
The drug, gedatolisib, in combination with Pfizer's (PFE.N), opens new tab Ibrance and AstraZeneca's (AZN.L), opens new tab endocrine therapy Faslodex, reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 76%, compared to Faslodex alone in previously treated HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer patients.
HR+/HER2- breast cancer accounts for about 70% of all breast cancers.
The study showed "unprecedented results", Leerink Partners analyst Andrew Berens said. Gedatolisib could become a new standard of care as a second-line treatment in breast cancer, especially in the community settings, Berens said.
Celcuity's triple combination treatment helped patients live for an average of 9.3 months without progression of the disease, compared to about two months with Faslodex.
Gedatolisib belongs to a class of drugs called PAM inhibitors, which include Novartis' (NOVN.S), opens new tab Afinitor and AstraZeneca's Truqap.
Celcuity projects revenue potential of $5 billion for the treatment in the second-line treatment setting.
The treatment was better tolerated in the late-stage trial than a previous early-stage study, with lower rates of high blood sugar and inflammation in the tissue lining the mouth, the company said, without offering further details.
The study also showed that a double combination of gedatolisib and Ibrance increased survival without progression of the disease in patients by 7.4 months on average, compared to about two months with Faslodex.
Celcuity plans to report full results from the late-stage study and data from a separate trial in patients whose tumors had alterations in some genes later this year.
It expects to apply for U.S. marketing approval in the fourth quarter.
Shares of the Minnesota-based firm more than doubled to $38.02 in early trading.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
21 minutes ago
- The Guardian
European pharmaceutical firms criticise Trump tariffs on medicines as ‘blunt instrument'
European pharmaceutical firms have condemned the US move to put 15% tariffs on medicines imported from the EU, calling the taxes a 'blunt instrument' that would harm patients on both sides of the Atlantic. They were responding to a White House text of the deal that inferred the 15% baseline rate on imports from the EU would also apply to drugs if the agreement is implemented on the US side on Friday as expected. 'As part of President Trump's strategy to establish balanced trade, the European Union will pay the United States a tariff rate of 15%, including on autos and auto parts, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors,' the text said. The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries (EFPIA) said: 'Tariffs on medicines are a blunt instrument that will disrupt supply chains, impact on investment in research and development, and ultimately harm patient access to medicines on both sides of the Atlantic.' The trade organisation represents drug companies across the bloc including Bayer in Germany, Novo Nordisk in Denmark, and US multinationals with operations in Ireland such as Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson. The US move to impose import duties on pharma is a breach of a 1995 World Trade Organization agreement that medicines and the active ingredients in them are rated at zero tariff. An EU trade spokesperson said pharma imports from the US to the EU would remain duty free. Washington's text also indicated that the EU had confirmed it would not introduce a tech tax. An EU spokesperson said this was not the case and the bloc retained the 'sovereign right to legislate' in the digital space. Trump declared war on US pharmaceutical companies who were manufacturing medicines for US patients, and booking profits on those sales abroad. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion In March, he repeatedly took aim at Ireland's historical low-tax policies, which helped lure US multinationals including Pfizer, Boston Scientific and Eli Lilly to its shores, claiming the country had looted US businesses. On Monday, Ireland's prime minister, Micheál Martin, said tariffs in general were not ideal but a trade war would have been 'ruinous'. The EFPIA said it strove to 'ensure a fairer distribution of how global pharmaceutical innovation is financed' but there were 'more effective ways' to achieve this that would 'help rather than hinder global advances in patient care and economic growth'. The White House text of the deal has added to existing confusion over the position of pharmaceuticals in the trade deal, given that EU officials said on Monday that pharma exports to the US would remain duty free until the US had completed its section 232 investigation into pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. The text also raises questions over standards of US foods exported to the EU. The EU said the US's reference to commitments to 'address non-tariff barriers affecting trade in food and agricultural products including streamlining requirements for sanitary certificates for US pork and dairy products' did not amount to any lowering of its red-line rules on food standards. It is known that the European Commission has also made a commitment to the UK to streamline veterinary certification processes applying to British food exports post-Brexit. This could include a reduction in the paperwork needed to export products.


Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Animal shelters across US seeing rise in 'owner surrenders'
Another troubling sign of economic strain: more Americans are giving up their pets. Animal shelters across the US are seeing a rise in 'owner surrenders,' as families hand over dogs and cats they can no longer afford to keep. Volunteers say it's often an early warning sign of deeper financial distress. 'There are times when the economy has taken a dip or we've had a lot of job layoffs,' Melissa Knicely, a staffer at North Carolina shelter, told CNN . When that happens, '100 percent' there will be a jump in pets given up. Knicely's shelter has seen a 43 percent spike in surrenders this year — with most families saying they simply couldn't afford to keep their pets. They're not alone. Several rescues across the country have reported similar issues. Risa Weinstock, president of the Animal Care Centers of New York City, said her organization has stopped accepting new animals because they're over capacity. 'We're in the business to care for animals that come to us, and we want to help people with their pets,' she told NBC News . 'But when we have 1,000 animals to care for and a capacity to house them that doesn't meet that need, we're in a bit of a difficult situation.' Dog and cat ownership has become significantly more expensive in recent years, with the price of food and veterinary care climbing steeply. Porter County Animal Shelter, an adoption center in Indiana, estimates that dog owners spend between $20 and $60 a month on food alone. Annual costs — including beds, collars, medical treatments, grooming, and other basics — can total any additional $925 to $2,900, depending on the dog's breed and size, they estimate. The increasing pet prices are also coming while Americans continue to struggle with their own day-to-day bills. Food prices have soared since 2020 as restaurants, grocery stores, and suppliers scrambled to rebuild supply chains after pandemic shutdowns. Now, with tariff campaigns, heightened interest rates , growing geopolitical uncertainty, and new price rises, consumers are starting to feel their wallets getting stretched further. Last month, the Labor Department said that prices rose 2.7 percent — the largest increase since February — breaking a months-long streak of slowing inflation. And Americans are increasingly taking out consumer debt to pay for those higher prices. Still, a majority of economic indicators point to a robust economy. Unemployment claims fell again last week, and the latest jobs report showed that Americans are working and earning more than before. Those figures have helped reassure Wall Street investors, who continue to pour money into the economy on hopes that US consumers will keep spending. But for many households, the gap between those promising macroeconomic signals and the realities of rising costs feels impossible to ignore.


Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE New mom details shocking cost of giving birth in America
A new mom has shared the shockingly high cost of giving birth in America - and it's well over six figures. Emily Fisher, 36, from Columbus, Ohio, welcomed twin girls last month and was left stunned when she saw an insurance claim come through for her delivery that was over $10,000. Completely shocked by the immense figure, she decided to go back and total up all the bills she had received over the course of her pregnancy to determine just how much having a baby in the US really costs. And after adding everything up, Emily found that having her baby girls would have cost her a whopping $120,527.51 had she not had insurance. She shared her findings in a video shared to TikTok earlier this month and it quickly went viral, leaving thousands across the globe just as surprised as she was. 'So I am five weeks postpartum with twin girls and I've been seeing a lot of headlines recently about how the birth rate in America is declining and how concerning that is,' Emily began in the video. 'I thought to myself, I could think of a lot of reasons why the birth rate might be declining. First and foremost, cost. 'So I decided to take it upon myself and look at every bill that I received over the course of my pregnancy and total what it costs to deliver twins in America.' Emily explained that she is considered 'advanced maternal age' and was pregnant with 'dichorionic diamniotic twins' which made her pregnancy 'high risk.' In addition, about halfway through the pregnancy her doctor raised concerns about potential 'fetal growth restriction,' so from about 22 weeks on she had to have two appointments every week with her OBGYN and a maternal fetal medicine specialist to make sure the babies were healthy. 'So what was the total cost of that? From the start of my pregnancy through delivery and me walking out of those hospital doors, the total bill for my care was $120,527.51,' she said in the video. 'Now I am very fortunate great insurance and I have a low deductible so over the course of my pregnancy out of pocket I paid $2,038.70. 'I know that is relatively good but still, $2,000 for something that is considered necessary and vital to the future of America is pretty significant.' Emily added that on top of that, her newborns both received bills for their delivery. 'It's kind of funny, they're not even able to blink yet and they've already been billed more than the total cost of my student loans,' she continued. 'Baby A received a bill for $15,124.55 and Baby B was billed $14,875.55, I guess there was some sort of sibling discount. She added, 'The total cost I owed for those two bills was $750, which was the cost of my deductible.' The bills are seen above 'The total cost I owed for those two bills was $750, which was the cost of my deductible.' She then broke down what some of the highest costs were during the pregnancy. Unsurprisingly, the delivery itself and the hospital stay afterwards was the most costly expense. Emily explained that she had a scheduled C-section at 37 weeks and spent four days in the hospital post delivery, and the total cost of her care before insurance was $65,665.50. The second highest cost during the pregnancy was an appointment she had about seven months in, during which she complained to her doctor that she was having headaches. She said they took her blood pressure and it was slightly elevated, so they monitored the heart rate of the babies for 20 minutes to 'make sure they were okay.' She was then given 'two extra strength Tylenol' and they 'did some blood work.' 'The cost that was billed to my insurance for that visit was $9,115,' shared the new mom. 'All things considered, I'm very grateful for the experience that I had and very grateful to have great insurance, but I know that for a lot of people who live in America that is simply not possible,' she concluded. 'And if I did not have insurance delivery my two baby girls, I would not be able to afford it. 'In fact, I probably would have had to file bankruptcy had I not had insurance. So when people act confused why the birth rates are down, maybe it's not necessarily all attributed to lifestyle choices, maybe it's not because people aren't feeling the vibe of having kids, maybe it's because the cost of having a baby in America is over six figures.' While chatting with the Daily Mail about it, Emily, who used to work on the healthcare space, said she believes the insurance system in America 'needs a complete overhaul.' 'Given that the US is the one of (if not the only) developed nation in the world without some sort of universal healthcare, we're falling behind,' she said. 'People are spending too much on basic and necessary care. Medical debt is one of the number one reasons for bankruptcy in the US, and it shouldn't be that way. 'If we invested in a system that put the health its people first, everyone would be better off. 'And given the decline in birth rates, if our politicians are genuinely concerned about falling birth rates, they would be incentivizing people to have children. You shouldn't have to pay to give birth.' She added that while she was 'shocked' by the high number that her insurance was billed, she was 'not surprised at the same time.' 'The first thing that came to mind when I saw the total was, "How do people without insurance afford this?"' she shared. 'But I've always known that healthcare in America is a business. Ultimately, like most necessities in the US, privatized insurance is designed to make money.' She said she certainly wasn't expecting her video, which was viewed more than one million times, to get as much attention as it did, but she's so glad that it has sparked a conversation. 'I hope my video makes people think twice about having kids in America. Because until the system is redesigned to truly support the people, we shouldn't be buying into it,' she concluded. 'I'm fortunate to have good health coverage. I'm not on the hook for much as far as the cost of my pregnancy, but that is only the beginning for my family and what we'll pay to raise my kids. 'Now we have to think about things like paying for their health coverage, daycare, food, housing and college. 'All of these things are only getting more and more expensive and almost unreachable for people.'