GSK, China's Jiangsu Hengrui strike $500 million drug-development deal
The deal comes as GSK focuses on growing its pipeline to offset declining revenues from top drugs and vaccines amid slowing demand and rising competition. It is hoping to reach annual sales of over 40 billion pounds ($53.7 billion) by 2031.
Under the deal, GSK will gain an exclusive licence to Hengrui's HRS-9821, which is being studied as a treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, with an option for 11 other treatments once they have cleared early-stage trials.
Hengrui said, opens new tab it could earn up to $12 billion in milestone payments if all options are exercised and targets are met under the GSK deal, which would cover therapy areas such as oncology, immunology, and inflammation.
GSK will pay the Chinese firm $500 million upfront.
"This deal reflects our strategic investment in programmes that address validated targets, increasing the likelihood of success, and with the option to advance those assets with the greatest potential for patient impact," GSK Chief Scientific Officer Tony Wood said.
Access to HRS-9821 would support GSK's ambition to treat patients across the widest spectrum of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, the company said, adding that the drug provides an opportunity for a formulation in the form of a convenient, dry-powder inhaler.
GSK's existing therapies for COPD include antibody treatment Nucala, opens new tab and the Trelegy Ellipta inhaler.
Shanghai-listed shares of Jiangsu Hengrui climbed 6.6% and its Hong Kong-listed stock jumped 8.5%, outperforming the blue-chip CSI 300 Index's (.CSI300), opens new tab 0.1% fall and the Hang Seng Index's (.HIS), opens new tab 0.3% gain.
GSK shares were up 1.5% in London by 0830 GMT, against the 0.2% gain in the wider, blue-chip FTSE 100 (.FTSE), opens new tab index.
($1 = 0.7455 pounds)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Auto Blog
an hour ago
- Auto Blog
Aston Martin May Sell Stake in Formula 1 Racing Team and Go Private in Turnaround Efforts
Tesla is falling behind BYD in several key international markets, but its rival's recent operational struggles are opening a door of opportunity. Despite coming up with some compelling vehicles in recent years, Aston Martin has continued to struggle financially, leading it to some tough decisions as it plots a path forward. Among other efforts, the storied British automaker reportedly plans to sell its stake in its Formula 1 racing team, and some expect the company to delist itself from the London Stock Exchange. Aston only owns 4.6 percent of the racing team, but the sale would raise $146 million for the company, which desperately needs cash. The automaker cited tariffs and a slowdown in China for its struggles, saying it would only break even this year, which caused a drop in its share prices. The company's stock market valuation has dropped from almost $6 billion in late 2018 to just over $1 billion today. That said, the F1 team sale valued the company at $3.2 billion. While Aston Martin won't have a stake in the F1 team after the sale, it will continue a relationship with the sport through naming and branding agreements, so we won't see a change on the grid. The automaker's car lineup is one of the most compelling in its history, so there are reasons for Aston to be encouraged. Its first SUV, the DBX has grown to account for almost half of its sales, and other new models have received stellar reviews from customers and critics. 2025 Aston Martin DBX 707 — Source: Kyle Edward Lawrence Stroll acquired the Force India F1 team in 2018 and transformed it into the Aston team we know today. Stroll and his partners have continue investing in the business, but many credit Netflix's Drive to Survive with bringing the sport's value to an all-time high. About the Author Chris Teague View Profile
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Common sense has triumphed over compensation culture
Millions of motorists will not be able to claim car finance compensation after a landmark Supreme Court ruling on Friday. Judges rejected two out of the three cases that argued car dealers should have told customers about commission paid when they took out loans. It cannot be overstated how significant this ruling was — and how relieved Rachel Reeves will be. An enormous redress scheme — which could have opened the floodgates to compensation claims worth up to £44 billion — would have seriously tarnished the reputation of our financial services industry. It would also have made Britain a less desirable place to invest and damaged the growth that we so need. Yet ultimately it would have been you, the consumer, footing the bill through higher interest rates. The investigation into car finance mis-selling was initially focused on drivers whose car dealer had increased their interest rate to earn a bigger fee, charging something known as discretionary commission — a practice that was banned in 2021. But since the three cases went to the Supreme Court, there have been concerns that a ruling in favour of all of them would have allowed millions of drivers to claim for compensation. Friday's verdict means that only those who have genuinely been treated unfairly will be able to make a claim. The government has said it will work with regulators to unpack the Supreme Court's ruling and its impact on consumers, banks and the car industry. • I want to overpay my car finance, but Santander won't let me We have seen many commission-linked scandals over the years. Payment protection insurance (PPI) was a worthless product flogged to simply make money. Same with credit card cover. Mis-sold annuities, pensions and with-profits funds were all driven by salespeople's desire to make vast sums by giving bad advice that was often life-destroying. But can commission on car finance really be compared with these scandals? Hardly. This commission was linked to the sale of a car — a product used by the owner. Not once, not twice, but often every day, year in, year out. Most of these drivers didn't get a bad deal. They bought cars they liked on deals that were good and hassle-free. Not many drivers would have £50,000 lying around to buy a new car; loans allowed them to get behind the wheel of something new, while keeping payments affordable — and you can swap cars every few years. • UK litigation boom mainly benefits lawyers, insurers and funders Car finance has become a big business — more than nine in ten new cars are bought this way. New lending was worth £39.7 billion in the 12 months to May 2025 — up from £20 billion in 2008. I don't believe for a second that everyone who took out car finance suffered with buyer's remorse — especially those who weren't subject to discretionary commission. Redress is to compensate for a loss but have all these drivers really suffered a loss? The court ruling means that only those who have genuinely been mis-sold will be able to make a claim. If people have been ripped off, it's only right that they get compensation. But if you've been happy with your deal, should you really claim compensation? Surely most people know that the car salesman will get something in return for selling you a loan? 'I wouldn't have got car finance if I knew the salesman got commission' — said no one. If the Supreme Court had ruled in favour of all three cases it would have come at a great expense. The cost of compensation would have pushed up the price of loans. Small and medium-sized car loan firms may also have disappeared, leading to less competition and higher rates. And what would have happened to the car industry, largely propped up by these loans? If we haven't got car finance, what options do people have? You can buy a car with cash. But not all drivers have that kind of money, and it's often not a smart way to use your money if you do — new cars lose up to 20 per cent of their value the moment they're driven off the forecourt. You can, of course, buy a used car. But second-hand cars come with their own issues — they may not have a warranty and they could end up being expensive if they need lots of repairs. This sorry saga has highlighted a shocking compensation culture that Britain has managed to nurture in the wake of the PPI scandal. It's welcome news that common sense has prevailed. Ultimately, consumers will be the ones to benefit.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Asylum seekers handed almost one million NHS 'free passes' in the last five years
Asylum seekers have been handed almost one million NHS 'free passes' in the last five years, official new data reveals. The HC2 certificates give Britons on low incomes the right to free health services that most people would have to pay for. This includes prescriptions, dental care, eye tests, wigs, and discounts for glasses, contact lenses, and travelling to and from appointments. But figures released under freedom of information laws show most of the 1.56 million issued across the UK since 2020 were awarded to asylum seekers. They accounted for 920,199, or 59 per cent, of the certificates awarded over this period the NHS Business Services Authority told the Telegraph. Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said the figures 'are another illustration of the costs of illegal immigration'. 'Those crossing the Channel invariably claim asylum, and then receive housing, bills paid, free money and full healthcare – despite never having paid a penny in tax and having entered the country illegally,' he said. 'No wonder illegal immigrants from across Europe are flocking to the UK.' Anyone who can demonstrate they have a low or no income can apply for an HC2 certificate regardless of their immigration status. Asylum seekers are automatically given one if they are eligible for 'section 95 support' under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which means they are entitled to claim financial and housing assistance. Other migrants claiming asylum are able to apply for it, depending on the levels of support they are receiving. Conservative MP Steve Barclay, a former health secretary, said it was 'an abuse of taxpayer funds' and 'completely wrong that asylum seekers are receiving beneficial access to health treatment compared to the taxpayers who fund it'. The certificate provides 'full help with health costs', such as unlimited dental care and prescriptions, vouchers worth up to £233 to spend on glasses, as well as refunds on any travel costs to hospital appointments. The cost of a prescription for a British resident is £9.90 if they have no other exemption, while the most basic NHS dentist check-up is £27.40. Dental treatments cost hundreds of pounds more. A simple NHS eye test costs £23.55, while wigs and fabric supports, which can be given to patients with hair loss because of alopecia or cancer treatment, can cost in excess of £300. Asylum seekers must renew their certificates every six months, rather than the 12 months that applies to other UK residents. But holders are able to continue using their certificate to get all costs covered until it expires, even if their circumstances change. Anyone with an HC2 form can also get free care for their partner and children or dependents up to the age of 18. There have been 317,000 claims for asylum from migrants within the UK over the same period, which is double the number in the previous five years, between 2015 and 2019. New data released on Thursday revealed that 25,000 migrants had crossed the English Channel on small boats in 2025, hitting the milestone earlier in the year than ever before. An NHS spokesperson said: 'The NHS is legally required to provide healthcare services to asylum seekers, including access to help with health costs through the NHS Low Income Scheme.' A government spokesperson said: 'We are fixing the chaotic asylum system we inherited and have returned over 35,000 people, including failed asylum seekers, immigrants and foreign national offenders to ultimately relieve pressures on nationwide services. 'These certificates do not give access to NHS services ahead of people who don't have one. 'The highest number of certificates issued in the last five years were under the previous administration.'
