Vera shares skyrocket as kidney disease drug succeeds in late-stage trial
The drug developer's shares surged to $34.24 in premarket trading, giving it a market value of $2.18 billion, if gains hold.
The drug, atacicept, reduced protein levels in the urine by 46% in patients with IgA nephropathy, which was statistically significant compared to a placebo, meeting the main goal of the study, the company said.
In IgA nephropathy, there is a buildup of proteins that causes inflammation in kidneys, which is indicated by their presence in the patient's urine.
The late-stage study data beat investor's expectations, which were based on the 35% reduction seen in the mid-stage study of the drug, said Evercore ISI analyst Liisa Bayko in a note.
Vera plans to submit a marketing application to the FDA in fourth-quarter and expects for potential commercial launch in 2026 in the United States. The study will continue to test the change in kidney function over two years and is expected to complete in 2027.
Rival Japan-based firm Otsuka Holdings (4578.T), opens new tab has already filed for a marketing application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for its kidney disease drug, sibeprenlimab. That drug is expected to reach the market six to nine months ahead of Vera's atacicept, Bayko said.
In a separate mid-stage trial, Otsuka's drug had helped reduce levels of excess proteins by 43%, according to Evercore.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
26 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump says he wants Musk and his companies to thrive in US
July 24 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump said on Thursday he would not destroy Elon Musk's companies by taking away federal subsidies and that he wants the billionaire tech-entrepreneur's businesses to thrive. "Everyone is stating that I will destroy Elon's companies by taking away some, if not all, of the large scale subsidies he receives from the U.S. Government. This is not so!," Trump said in a post on Truth Social. "I want Elon, and all businesses within our Country, to THRIVE."
The Guardian
26 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Why does technology create new problems for each problem it solves?
Today, so-called techno-optimists fill the ranks of Silicon Valley billionaires. They proclaim a bright future for humanity delivered by the rapid pursuit of technological advances. Of course, these techno-optimists are right that technology and science are unarguably among humanity's greatest assets, and hope for the future. But they go too far, because it is also true that technology always creates new problems even as it solves others – this is also something we've learned through science. As a result, naive faith in technology is a recipe for repeatedly achieving a short-term buzz while also incurring long-term costs. Getting the best out of technology requires a more cautious and balanced approach. Why does technology so often go wrong – even as it gets many things right? The anthropologist Sander van der Leeuwe sketched out an answer about a decade ago, and it seems to be something like a law of nature. When we face a problem, we think about it and build a conceptual model of how part of the world works. We use it to propose a solution to our problem. Based on that understanding, we then act, and the technology we come up with often solves the problem. However, we then typically find that our model – of course – wasn't actually a complete model of the world. Our simple model left some things out. Not surprisingly, it then turns out that our technology, operating in the real world, has effects on that world that we hadn't foreseen – unanticipated consequences. We repeatedly encounter this pattern because simple models are so powerful, seductive and useful. Also, simple models leave details out so that we always misperceive the full consequences of our actions. We invent better fishing technology to feed more people, and then find we've wiped out fish populations. We create wonderful non-stick surfaces for cooking pans and then later discover that the chemicals in these materials cause health problems and have leached into the environment, spreading essentially everywhere. We make super-convenient plastics that end up as micro-particles in the oceans and in our own bodies. This is also the story of technology, along with the great victories. Because we understand this, anticipating problems should be part of technological development itself. A clear-eyed view of our ignorance doesn't mean not pursuing technology, but counsels caution and wisdom by employing foresight, without expecting anything close to flawless prescience. It also means taking practical steps to regulate development and give time to redress emerging problems, while at the very least avoiding the worst possible outcomes. Our current approach to research and development in artificial intelligence or AI offers an example of the reckless approach. Right now a handful of the world's largest technology companies are battling it out among themselves to control the market for this technology, rolling out one model after another as fast as they can with little oversight. As the neuroscientist Gary Marcus has argued, this race for near-term dominance has one obvious cost – it exposes everyone to the unknown risks of new and untested technologies. It also has a less obvious cost: the pitched urgency of the competition means that virtually all available resources get invested in research in the recent most promising area, currently so-called large-language models. This hoards resources away from other areas of computer science that might ultimately turn out to be more important to one day achieving true AI. Fortunately, not all Silicon Valley leaders accept the techno-optimist demand for uncontrolled technological acceleration. Dario Amodei, CEO of the AI company Anthropic, certainly shares their optimism, as he revealed in a recent essay expressing his view that AI research could lead to incredible improvements to human wellbeing. Exploring an admittedly optimistic scenario, he suggests that we might in a few decades eliminate essentially all diseases, spread beneficial economic growth across nations, even greatly improve humans' collective ability to form consensus on issues of fundamental social importance. But Amodei also accepts that there's plenty of room for things to go wrong – AI may not achieve any of these positives, and could instead radically exacerbate inequality, or provide a new class of autocrats with unprecedented powers of surveillance and control through AI-enhanced propaganda. What will happen depends on the choices we make. And, in this, he suggests that keeping a close focus on risks and regulation has to be the right way forward, rather than naively racing into the future with hope as our guide. People not only underestimate how good AI might one day be, he thinks, but also how bad the risks could be. And there's natural asymmetry we need to respect. 'The basic development of AI technology and many (not all) of its benefits seems inevitable,' as he sees it, as the result of powerful market forces. 'On the other hand, the risks are not predetermined and our actions can greatly change their likelihood.' As so often with cultures such as Wall Street or Silicon Valley, the essential tension is between forces seeking short-term profits – whatever the long-term outcome – and others who would rather balance opportunities and risks, and thereby pursue more sustainable benefits. In arguments for and against such opposing views, there's a natural imbalance, as alluring and obvious potential profits now get weighed up against harder-to-see and less-defined risks set in an unknown future. It's not a fair comparison. Especially when it is so easy to make catastrophically huge errors when thinking about the future, even the near future. In his techno-optimist manifesto, the entrepreneur Marc Andreessen casually voices his dream that we might ramp up clean-energy resources so quickly that everyone on earth could soon use 1,000 times more energy a day than is currently typical for people in developed nations. Just think what people could achieve! Sounds great. Except that a little physics thinking also shows that using that much energy would immediately cause planetary warming about 30 times faster than we're experiencing today, and we'd all be dead in a few years. Not so great after all. Of course, anyone might make this kind of mistake, because in our complex world, cause and effect is complex. Technology is tricky, and what might happen is far from obvious. That's just the way it is – and why we need to think more carefully about risks and follow a more cautious approach. Mark Buchanan is a physicist and science writer and the author of Ubiquity and Nexus: Small Worlds and the New Science of Networks
Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Doctors told us our newborn's grunting was just normal 'baby noise'... but now she is on life support
Imagine the devastation of finding out that what you thought were normal 'baby noises' were actually a sign that your newborn was in severe distress. It seems like every parent's nightmare - but it was a reality for Stephanie Mulhall-Atkinson, 37, and Justin Atkinson, 33. The couple, from Canada, welcomed their daughter, Sloane, in October 2024, and immediately after her birth, they noticed the newborn was making strange 'noises' that sounded like she was 'grunting.' But doctors assured them that she was just extra vocal, declared Sloane as 'perfectly healthy,' and 'released her without any concern.' Six weeks later, Stephanie and Justin watched their daughter go from 'a happy, smiley, and chatty' baby to 'intubated in the PICU' and fighting for her life. While chatting with the Daily Mail about the horrific ordeal, Stephanie explained, 'We raised concern [about her grunting noises] to many different doctors and nurses while we were in the hospital for five days post-birth, including the pediatrician. 'They all said that her lungs sounded clear so she was fine and that she was just a vocal baby making normal baby sounds.' The grunting didn't stop after they brought Sloane home, but Stephanie just assumed it was normal baby gargling because that's what the hospital doctors had told her. 'We were told that it was just her baby noises and that she was very vocal,' she explained. But Sloane began to develop other symptoms. She was sometimes sweaty and seemed extra fussy any time she was held. And when she was about six-and-a-half weeks old, things took a drastic turn when the infant suddenly stopped eating. Stephanie and Justin also noticed a 'very faint blue tint around her mouth,' so they took her to the emergency room. '[When we got there] she was making her grunting noises. As soon as the doctors heard the noises they asked if she had always done that and we said yes and that we were told it was just her normal baby noise,' recalled Stephanie. 'We were then told that it actually is a sign of distress and not normal at all. Everything escalated from there.' Doctors rushed to do tests on the youngster to figure out what was wrong, and they then got the heartbreaking news that Sloane's heart was not working properly. 'They performed an echocardiogram to get a picture of her heart and as soon as the image popped up on the screen we saw the look of "I knew it" on the ER doctor's face,' Stephanie continued. '"Her heart is barely pumping" is all we really remember hearing. She was rushed up to the PICU, sedated and intubated immediately.' Stephanie and Justin soon learned that their newborn was battling something known as dilated cardiomyopathy, which was caused by a 'genetic mutation.' It meant her heart was 'very enlarged' and 'unable to pump hard enough on its own.' They were told she was in end stage heart failure and that she would require a heart transplant to survive. 'There are no words to describe those first acute days and weeks and hearing that your tiny baby needs a heart transplant,' Stephanie said. 'It was an out of body experience. Your brain cannot comprehend that.' They were especially 'devastated and angry' that the doctors after she gave birth had been so dismissive, which meant their little Sloane had spent weeks in distress. 'For the six weeks we had her home we just thought her noises were cute. Finding out that it meant she had been in distress that whole time was unbearable,' Stephanie scathed. 'It should have raised red flags [with the doctors] because [we now know that] grunting a sign of distress in babies.' Sloane is now on a life support device and has been living in the hospital for the past seven months while awaiting her transplant. Stephanie and Justin have raised over $25,000 on GoFundMe, which has made it possible for them to be by her side every step of the way. 'Thanks to the support we have received financially we've been able to both take time off from working and completely focus our attention on her,' shared Stephanie. And she revealed that her daughter is 'thriving' all things considered. 'The device has allowed her to grow and develop "normally." She is the happiest baby EVER and she truly is thriving,' the mom-of-one concluded.
