September 15, 2025 • 29 mins
Merck's announcement that it is moving its R&D out of the U.K. highlights concerns about the country’s life sciences policies. On the latest BioCentury This Week podcast, BioCentury’s analysts discuss the life sciences ecosystem in the U.K., including MHRA CEO Lawrence Tallon’s plans to create a world-class regulatory environment. They also discuss a bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives that would end most U.S.-China academic research collaborations, and the recent success of 40-year-old biotech Insmed. This episode of BioCentury This Week is sponsored by IQVIA Biotech.
View full story: https://www.biocentury.com/article/656997
#biotech #biopharma #pharma #lifescience #MHRA #China #RandD #DrugDevelopment
00:01 - Sponsor Message: IQVIA Biotech
01:25 - U.K. Biopharma
04:40 - Grand Rounds Cambridge
09:45 - SAFE Research Act
18:01 - Spotlight on Insmed
26:32 - Sen. Cassidy's Vaccine Callout
To submit a question to BioCentury’s editors, email the BioCentury This Week team at podcasts@biocentury.com.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
[AI-generated transcript.]
Eric Pierce (00:02):
BioCentury This Week is brought to
you by IQVIA Biotech.
For biotech companies strivingto bring innovative therapies
to market and maximize patientimpact, IQVIA Biotech is
the trusted CRO of choice.
Backed by 25 years ofunparalleled experience
and deep therapeuticexpertise, our full-service
clinical developmentsolutions are purpose-built
(00:23):
to accelerate success.
IQVIA Biotech helpsearly-stage biotechs de-risk
by developing strategicclinical development plans,
guiding drug candidates alongthe most promising pathways.
Leverage data-driven modelsand dynamic tools to craft
a compelling value story andmaintain momentum through every
phase of drug development.
Jeff Cranmer (00:48):
Amid an exodus of pharmaceutical
companies, the new headof the U.K.'s regulatory
body, MHRA is focusing onthe country's strengths.
We will discuss what is going onat MHRA and more on the latest
BioCentury this week podcast.
(01:10):
I'm Jeff Cranmer, executiveeditor here and host of the
BioCentury this week podcast.
And joining meare my colleagues.
Simone Fishburn (01:19):
Simone Fishburn, Editor in Chief.
Steve Usdin (01:21):
Steve Usdin, Washington Editor.
Stephen Hansen (01:23):
Stephen Hansen, Director of
Biopharma Intelligence.
Jeff Cranmer (01:25):
Steve, welcome to the show.
I wanted to find out aboutyour conversation with
the new head of the MHRA.
Steve Usdin (01:34):
So, yeah, so I, I had an interview
with, Lawrence Tallon.
He's been on the jobabout five months.
basically what wetalked about is.
How does he plan toposition MHRA, in the
U.K. and, and, globally?
I think the summary wouldbe he wants to focus on
strengths, which for the U.K.
are, or science, cell andgene therapies, rare diseases,
vaccines, mRNA therapeutics.
(01:56):
and he's wants to also pursueand to continue to pursue a
policy which, MHRA has, has beenvery active in, which is, in
collaborating with regulators inother countries, for, uh, mutual
recognition and for reliance.
the idea be basically beingthat, regulators in middle and
smaller sized countries can,focus on their strengths and
(02:17):
kind of reinforce each other,both in terms of technology
and in terms of, um, regulatorycapacity for things like,
inspections and reviews.
Simone Fishburn (02:25):
Steve, so, Obviously we can't ignore the
news that's come out this week.
We're also on the cusp ofGrand Rounds, and we're gonna
have more to say at the endof the week about the feeling
on the ground here regardingMerck pulling out and the
pressure being put on bypharmas on the U.K. ecosystem.
Let's say specificallyon the government.
(02:46):
One thing I wanted to askyou, you know, confining
the conversation to this, isthat one of the complaints,
I mean obviously a lot ofit is drug pricing, but one
of the complaints is thatthe regulatory environment
is too unfriendly as well.
That was sort ofin Merck's list.
whether that actually is towhat degree that's actually
responsible for their decision,I don't know, To what degree
(03:07):
do you think that what LawrenceTallon is envisioning if
successful, would actuallyaddress, the barriers that
people see to regulation?
Steve Usdin (03:18):
Well, I, I think that one of the biggest problems
in the U.K. one of the biggestconcerns, is the same as, an
enormous concern that companieshave in the United States, which
is the time that it takes toget a, a clinical trial started.
and, um, to iterate and to getnew, um, first in human trials
on, um, iterated, drugs startedand, he is, he, he announced
(03:40):
goals there that, you know,basically would put the U.K.
in line with the United States.
It, it's not going to be asfast as China, it's not gonna
be fast as, um, as some othercountries probably, but his
goal is to have it, you know,similar to the United States.
So I think that would address.
Some of the major issues.
sense
Simone Fishburn (04:01):
do you think that's, under
ambitious, Steve, or doyou think that's realistic?
How, how would you rate that?
Steve Usdin (04:06):
I think it's realistic and I think that,
The talk about the, theregulatory, concerns in, in the
U.K. is probably just addingsomething to the laundry list.
But the truth is.
That reimbursement and coverageare the real issues that the
pharmas are concerned about.
Simone Fishburn (04:21):
Yeah, I think concerned is an understatement.
Furious might be, um, closerto what I think they are.
and, and, and you know, Ithink a lot of people have
said, and I think that there'sa lot of truth in this, that.
Merck per se, is tremendouslyunder pressure and
restructuring generally.
So a lot of things canbe true at the same time.
(04:42):
as I said, we'll, we'll comeback to this issue when we
talk to people on the ground.
Stephen and I are gonnabe at Grand Rounds in
Cambridge this week.
We have Patrick Vallance,Minister for Science in
conversation with Kate Bingham.
I am sure there will bequestions for him, so it's
gonna be an interesting,week to be here.
Steve Usdin (04:58):
and there's another dynamic at play, of course,
also, which is that companiesare under tremendous pressure
from the Trump administrationto be seen as investing
heavily, in the United States,in manufacturing and in R&D.
And there have been a wholestream of announcements
over the last few monthsof very large, investments
in both manufacturing andR&D in the United States.
(05:21):
Know, it is a zero sum game.
There's a certain, there'sonly a certain amount of
money that companies haveto invest globally, and if
they're under, strong pressureto invest more in the United
States, then that makes itmore difficult for them to
justify investments elsewhere.
Simone Fishburn (05:36):
Yeah.
And even though I keep sayingwe're not gonna talk about
it this week, just one morepoint on that front, which
is, you know, it's, there's noquestion that having pharmas.
Involved and on the ground is,a huge boost to the ecosystem.
I think the questionfor the U.K. is how
much is it a necessity?
So in the U.S. obviouslyhaving them in Boston
(05:58):
made a huge difference.
The China ecosystemhas actually managed to
create a lot of momentum.
Without necessarily havingR&D as a pillar of it
from the pharma companies.
And not all ecosystemsare the same.
There's some people whoare saying AI will make the
difference, and the U.K.
is strong in that.
So we'll see where it goes.
(06:18):
But, just coming backto where you started,
which is what LawrenceTallon is doing at MHRA.
I think that that is essential.
I think that, you know, that'sgot to be built regardless of
whether the government can,bring the pharmas back to the
table, because if they don'thave a efficient regulatory
environment, it's gonna bevirtually impossible to make
(06:41):
it a place where clinicaltrials are attractive to run.
Steve Usdin (06:45):
Well, and, and there's more to it also that,
you know, people should read,should read the interview and
the, the story that I did.
Simone Fishburn (06:49):
They should
Steve Usdin (06:51):
one one, of the things that he brought up,
which I thought was, was reallyinteresting is that if you
have an environment in whichthere's a great deal more
mutual reliance and mutualrecognition, then you can
envision a world in whichgetting an approval, for
example, a product approvalin the U.K. would unlock
much bigger markets.
If there's a, kind of adefault assumption, that, MHRA
(07:12):
approval is gonna unlock a,uh, approvals in, developing
markets, for example, um,and those markets are gonna
become increasingly important.
then that again makes,makes it more important
and more attractive,
Simone Fishburn (07:24):
'cause what you're saying is you're,
then not talking about apopulation of 60 million.
You're talking about apopulation of 60 million plus
whatever other regions opens up.
Right.
And that's verydifferent equation.
Absolutely.
Alright, so having saidwe wouldn't talk about it,
Jeff, let's go back to you.
Jeff Cranmer (07:40):
Simone, you mentioned Grand Rounds.
Well, it's the last call tojoin our conference in Cambridge
U.K., starting this Wednesday.
Stephen reluctantly, Oxfordman coming Grand Rounds is
gonna focus on how to makeearly stage R&D investible.
(08:02):
And how to overcome keybottlenecks in translation.
It's our third Grand Rounds.
our Chicago session was a bighit in June, debut meeting
last year in Nashville,Tennessee, now we're headed
to the U.K. There's been ajump in registration since
everyone returned from summer.
(08:24):
and it's gonna bea packed house.
There's a sold out presentingcompany track, sold out
academic poster session, anda great lineup of speakers
including Kate Bingham.
And James Sabry, the former,head of deal making at Roche
and Genentech, who is now atBioMarin here in California.
(08:47):
there'll also be two days ofpartnering and networking.
There's still timeto register at
BioCenturyGrandRoundsEurope.com.
You can also register onsite in Cambridge on the
afternoon of September 17th.
We'll be at the CambridgeUnion Society and
hope to see you there.
Simone Fishburn (09:07):
Jeff, just just one note.
We're at the Cambridge Union onWednesday night, but I believe
we will also take walk-in.
On Thursday, Friday, whichis at Churchill College.
Jeff Cranmer (09:17):
Churchill.
I've heard that name before.
Simone Fis (09:20):
and yes, and we will
Jeff Cranmer (09:21):
that fellow that would, uh, wake
up and drink champagne?
Simone Fishburn (09:25):
they, they they like, they do like this.
Churchill hit good dude here.
But, um, it, importantly,Jeff, I will be sending you
pictures of the buttery.
Jeff Cranmer (09:34):
I, I, you know, America, uh, say
what you will about it.
we don't have butteries hereand, uh, I, I think that might
be the cause of, uh, many ofthe problems in this country.
Where should we go from here?
Hey, why don't we head toWashington to find out about,
a new piece of legislation thatSteve, uncovered last week.
(09:59):
you loved the Bio Secure Act.
but wait, there's more Steve.
Steve Usdin (10:03):
So, the House of Representatives when
they passed the, NationalDefense Authorization Act,
included an amendment on theamendment, um, is called the
Securing American Funding andExpertise from Adversarial
Research Exploitation Act,otherwise known as the Safe
Research Act, sponsored byrepresentative John Moolenaar.
(10:24):
The idea is basically to makeit impossible for American
academics to collaboratewith academics in China.
what the legislation would doif it's enacted and there's
a lot of steps that have tohappen between now and then.
would basically say that, um, itwould be impossible to have NIH
funding for any researchers whocollaborate with researchers.
(10:47):
At institutions in China thatmeet certain criteria, and
the criteria are very broad.
Most universities thatscientists in the United States,
would have collaborators at,would meet, this criteria.
and basically you have,you'd be erecting a wall
between the United States andChina at an academic level.
and I think that it's somethingthat's of, of, of real concern.
(11:10):
To me, it's a manifestationof this idea that,
biotechnology and the bioeconomy have been defined
as national security issues.
That concept is attractive inpart because thinking about
biotechnology and bioeconomyas national security.
a way to get enthusiasmfor government support.
(11:31):
It's a way to shield, um, theindustry from cuts and from
some of the negative impactsof anti-science, antip,
pharma, and anti-governmentmovements in the United States.
But there's a flip side to it.
There's a difference betweensaying that an industry is a
strategic asset, which I thinkanybody would acknowledge that
biotech and, pharmaceuticalsis for the United States.
(11:53):
and that's different from sayingthat it's part of the defense
or the military sphere, whichmost of biotech and most of
of pharmaceuticals are not.
And the, the problem is,is that when you muddle
these definitions, then youget to a space like where
Representative Moolenaar is.
Where he says, you know,that it's a national security
threat to the United Statesfor American researchers
(12:16):
who are conducting researchon basic science, who are
advancing the frontiersof biology to collaborate
with researchers in China.
And it's not just a, a kindof a, feel good issue or
something that, um, thatyou think, oh, well, science
should be, should be open.
And, um, which of courseit, it should, but
they're very concrete.
(12:37):
negative consequences fromcutting off, collaborations
between the UnitedStates and and China.
There are papers that havebeen published based on these
collaborations, and bothparties bring really important
insights and resources to thetable and these collaborations.
Simone Fishburn (12:55):
so Steve, as you know, we are big fans
of, collaborations, globalcollaborations, cross border
ones, I think many peoplecan acknowledge that China is
almost past a tipping pointnow in terms of, uh, a little
bit, like we said before, it'scertainly better and healthier
for everybody to have thesecollaborations, but maybe
China is less dependent thanit was several years ago.
(13:19):
one of my questions to youis if you wanna handicap the
likelihood of this passing,and the reason I ask is that I
know that there are reports thatsort of fairly big figures have
been put in the appropriations,desired appropriations for NIH.
So I wanted to ask you tocomment on, on that whether
(13:40):
it's that there are membersof Congress who sort of
see the light and will whatwe would consider see the
light and will push back onthis, or whether you think
that, That we're really in acompletely new era, and those
voices just aren't there.
Steve Usdin (13:54):
You know, first just the kind of mechanics
of what has to happen next.
So this has passed the house.
In order for it to be enactedinto law, it, it has to get
into the final bill, whichis, uh, probably going to
be, passed in December.
you know, first the, theSenate is gonna pass a,
a version of the bill.
It's likely to be quitedifferent from the
house version, and thenthere's going to be.
(14:14):
you know, behind the scenesnegotiations between the House
and the Senate to come up witha final version of the bill.
We don't know how, howmuch people, in the house,
how much they, they'regoing to push for this.
whether there's gonna beany pushback in the Senate.
I don't know.
I think that shine the light,uh, shine some light on it,
is a good thing because itwill, uh, hopefully it will.
(14:35):
Encourage people to thinkabout it and to think
about the consequences.
My guess is that the vastmajority of, uh, members of
the house who voted for thishave no idea, what it is.
And they probably don'tunderstand what the consequences
would be of cutting off,scientific collaboration
between United States and China.
Either if all of that comesout, maybe won't happen.
I think that there'senthusiasm in in Congress.
(14:58):
In general, for disentangling,um, the United States
and China in any respectswhere that is possible.
and I think that they'll seescience and, um, technology as
a particularly ripe area for it.
And I think there's also kind ofa conflation between different
areas of science and technology.
The bill that the house passeddoesn't specifically call out
(15:18):
biotech or the life sciences,and I think that's probably why
it hasn't gotten any attentionbecause people don't realize it.
but it would havethose consequences.
Simone Fishburn (15:27):
I mean, I think certainly those of us
who think that American primacyisn't a given can envisage this.
In the long term, becominga huge own goal, right?
Basically the U.S. disentanglingitself, while Chinese
researchers can go makingdiscoveries and partnering
with other people all over theworld who aren't doing this.
(15:48):
So it, it's not necessarilya strategic benefit to
the U.S. to do this.
Jeff Cranmer (15:54):
Put it gently.
yeah.
I've noticed like Canadais advertising on, TV here
in the U.S. saying, Hey,why don't you move north?
We got a place for you.
So I'm sure a lot of scientistsare listening to that.
we're gonna go to a breakshortly, but first, BioCentury
and Advarra are running a surveytogether to better understand
(16:17):
cancer clinical trials.
want to help us identifybottlenecks and best practices
to improve trial execution?
Go to BioCentury survey.com.
The survey only takesfive minutes, and as a
bonus, respondents willget a complimentary copy
Of the findings.
(16:38):
And hey, don't forget,BioCentury's Back to School.
signature issue.
It's our signature issue.
It is out now.
And for immediateaccess, you can go to
BioCenturyBacktoSchool.com.
Steve did a, Kind of anepic seven part, plus,
podcast, re-imagining of,what FDA, should, could be.
(17:05):
and uh, if you go to that, youcan get access to BioCentury
as well as, Steve's piece,edited by my colleagues,
Selina Koch and SimoneFishburn, our editor in chief.
we will be back in a moment.
Alanna Farro (17:21):
BioCentury This Week is brought to you by
BioCentury Grand Rounds Europe.
Grand Rounds, BioCentury'sR&D conference, will make
its European debut in 2025.
Join us to debate keytranslational bottlenecks and
unlock scientific breakthroughswith commercial potential.
Connect with VCs, academicinnovators, and biopharma
(17:42):
R&D and BD leaders to explorecutting edge advancements
in early stage R&D as wedive into disease biology,
therapeutic modalities,and enabling technologies.
Join us for the inauguralBioCentury Grand Grounds
Europe in Cambridge.
U.K. the September 17th to 19th.
Register and learn more atBioCenturyGrandRoundsEurope.com.
Jeff Cranmer (18:04):
We're back.
Stephen, you have beenthinking about Insmed.
tell us what you're finding.
Stephen Hansen (18:11):
Yeah.
Thanks Jeff.
Insmed is a, uh, what I wouldsay is a maybe classic biotech
story in that it's a, nearly 40year going overnight success.
maybe just a very,very quick history.
You know, maybe this willsound familiar from a lot of
other success stories thattake a long time to, come.
Um.
So Insmed was foundedas a diabetes company.
(18:32):
and when that didn't work,it had, several reinventions
of itself from being a growthfactor company, to biosimilars.
And, you know, a lot of thiswas, like in lots of biotech
companies not successful.
And so, you know, at theend of 2008, Insmed found
itself, with a market cap of.
57 million and not areally clear path forward.
(18:55):
And so this is where,I think that the story
started to get interestingor, or not, depending
on, on your perspective.
So they did a very, very smalldeal where they brought in a,
uh, drug inhalation platform andstarted, working on the lead
program, which was basicallyan inhaled formulation of a
50 60-year-old antibiotic.
And that's partly why Ithink a lot of people may be.
have overlookedinmed for a while.
(19:17):
I mean, if you look 10 yearsback, that was the lead program.
They had a inhaled formulationof this antibiotic for an orphan
setting that they were runningthrough late stage trials.
And this was at a time when, youknow, everyone was focused on
PD ones or Car Ts or Crisper.
And so.
Wasn't exactly the, uh, maybethe sexiest pipeline, around.
(19:38):
And so I think that's maybepartly explains why they were,
they were largely overlooked.
but then, like lots ofthese companies, they came
across an asset that theywere able to find, you
know, new opportunity for.
So in 2016, they did adeal with AstraZeneca that
brought in a, DPP1 inhibitor.
Which had been developed forsort of pulmonary indications
(19:59):
and they found a new one for it.
A bronchiectasis ran a PhaseII trial, was successful in
the Phase II trial, and thenmoved into Phase III, and
that's really where thingsstarted to take off for them.
And that just readout last year.
So they had positive PhaseIII data in bronchiectasis
for two different doses.
And basically it's beenone of the hottest stocks
(20:22):
of the past several years.
almost every big specialistfund has an ownership stake
in them, and they are nowtrading just above $30 billion.
So it's, it's quite a remarkablesort of turnaround here from
being a largely, unknownor maybe not often talked
about company to now being.
Basically one of the hottestbiotechs, uh, in the sector.
Simone Fishburn (20:44):
So Stephen, I mean, as you say,
classical biotech story.
Of course, every companythat's not doing well
wants to have that end.
It doesn't alwayswork out that way.
I think you earlier sortof referred to it as.
Similar to the Horizon,story, and that that ended
up being a takeout by Angen,of course, for 24 billion.
Stephen Hansen (21:07):
28 billion, I think was the
takeout for Horizon and
Simone Fishburn (21:10):
Obviously, the question now is, does this make
Insmed a prime takeout target?
And maybe you can expandon the analogy with
Horizon for the audience.
Stephen Hansen (21:19):
Sure.
No, I think it's a goodanalogy and I think there's a
good parallel here, potentialbecause, so the reason I, I,
I see similarities betweenInsmed and Horizon Pharma
was because, Horizon Pharma,for all intents and purposes,
was a, you know, fairlysmall specialty pharma, that.
Also had unlicensed a largelysort of, you know, discarded
drug that was targeting IGF,target that had long been
(21:42):
sort of gone after and hadof lost its luster per se.
But they found a new placein, thyroid eye disease where
you could use it, and it notonly worked in the clinic,
but proved to be a muchlarger and more lucrative
commercial opportunity.
Than anybody had, reallyanticipated and that sort
of shot Horizon up to, tobeing this sort of large cap
(22:03):
company that, as you say waseventually taken up by Amgen.
Insmed is is similar in thatthey also acquired an asset, as
I said, and has now, you knowwhat, they are projecting to be
potentially a $5 billion peaksales in bronchiectasis alone.
an indication that, doesn'thave any approved drugs.
They're also looking atexpansion opportunities
into chronic rhinosinusitiswithout nasal polyps.
(22:26):
And Simone, one of yourfavorite indications
indications hidradenitis
Simone Fishburn (22:31):
It is so fluent in that.
Stephen Hansen (22:34):
And, um, you know, looking at a
sort of pipeline in, ina product just there.
But then on top of that, theyare getting some other assets
out of their inhaled, platformthat they had acquired in 2010.
They also have an inhaledformulation of treprostinil,
that just had positive PhaseII B data in, uh, pulmonary
arterial hypertension.
So you kind of lined up,they have one blockbuster
(22:57):
now coming that just gotapproved, for bronchiectasis
They have another one that'sgoing into Phase III that they
think has 2 billion potential.
So, at a $30 billionvaluation, they kind of look
like they might be maybetwo big be acquired at this
with, with multiple drivers.
Simone Fishburn (23:12):
I mean, they'd be very expensive
to buy What you are sayingis that the value isn't
exclusively in the lead asset.
I mean, maybe predominantly,and of course, and Jeff can
give you the the URL of course,but this really does relate
to our back to school essayof two years ago where we
talked about the tier jumpers.
(23:34):
And this baby jumped from theunder $5 billion tier to the
20 plus billion dollars tier.
And you know, who knows?
Maybe marching to that50 plus, who knows?
Stephen Hansen (23:45):
It's moving quick, but it's, I, I,
I, I, I, want to go back tothe Horizon parallel as well,
because I think that's also apotential road that this goes.
You can foresee a scenario inwhich, and something maybe that
that Insmed obviously needs tomaybe, protect against, because
the reason Horizon ended upgetting acquired is because
they essentially got a littlebit too far ahead of themselves
(24:05):
in terms of their guidance forthe growth that they were gonna
see from Tepezza there, thatlead assets and effectively.
guided for too quick a growth.
That growth didn't show upand so they had to pull back
the stock then pulled backand it reached a point to
where it basically became,an acquisition target.
And Amgen was able totake it out, as you
said, for 28 billion.
(24:26):
And you could foresee a scenarioin which something similar
could happen if in Insmed is tooaggressive with their guidance
on the growth for Brinsupri.
And so I think that's somethingthey need to, um, you know.
Be wary of, you know, take thelong, you know, good advice of,
you know, under, under promiseand over deliver rather than
being too aggressive here.
But, 5 billion peak salesfor one indication here
Simone Fishburn (24:47):
I mean,
Stephen Hansen (24:48):
feels pretty aggressive to me.
we'll see where this goes.
Simone Fishburn (24:51):
but we do know, I mean, with
all the conversation.
About pharmas needing latestage assets and the fact
that there aren't that many ofthem, what's 10 billion here?
Are they,
Stephen Hansen (25:02):
billion thing, 30 is another.
This
Simone Fishburn (25:04):
they, yeah.
Well, I meant in of DI meantin terms of differential,
but I mean, let's justacknowledge one more thing.
It's also a different regulatoryenvironment, so, in that
takeout there was a sort of.
FTC that made it take forever,and I think that there was
some kind of oversight ofthat, whereas I think now it's
considered a more friendlyenvironment for takeouts.
Stephen Hansen (25:24):
True.
Yeah.
No, I think you're right.
But it's, again, I, I, Ijust think it's been really
interesting diving intothe, diving into the past
of Insmed and, and sort of.
Looking at this, successstory and, you know, something
that, is one of these successstories that we should
celebrate from our sector.
This is one of the areaswhere, you know, it's, it's
fun to see a, see a company,uh, get a win like this.
Simone Fishburn (25:42):
And a disease that's had nothing
get the breakthrough.
Stephen Hansen (25:45):
That's right.
Jeff Cranmer (25:46):
All right.
Thank you for that.
Stephen.
Stephen, We'll have a storyout, early this week, on Insmed.
And, as Simone mentioned,our Back to School, uh, two
years ago focused on tearjumpers, building the road
to sustainable biotechs.
if you'd like to checkthat out, drop me a line.
(26:07):
and, uh, we can set youup with a free trial
and it's a great story.
We look at 17 growth companies,and Simone, Stephen and Lauren
Martz, wrote that piece.
it's quite interesting lookingat companies like Insmed
as they, jump up the ranks.
When Stephen told me he wasworking on the Insmed story,
(26:28):
I was, shocked that theywere all of a sudden, uh,
you know, like, your kids,like all of a sudden they've.
They grow up so fast.
Steve, uh, quickly beforewe go, signs of life
from Senator Cassidy.
what's going on?
Steve Usdin (26:44):
Senator Cassidy wrote a letter to.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. TheHHS Secretary last week,
calling on him to publiclyendorse the pertussis vaccine.
Actually a combinationvaccine that includes,
pertussis antigen.
Cassidy noted that there's,an outbreak of pertussis
in his state, Louisiana,that's resulted in deaths
(27:05):
and hospitalizations and,that it's growing in other
states in the United States.
It will be interesting to seewhat, Kennedy's response to
this is for years, in his life.
Before he was at HHS, hecast doubts about, the
pertussis vaccine, aboutits use in the United
States and internationally.
he canceled or postponed,funding for Gavi, the
(27:29):
organization that's it,is the largest funder of,
vaccination in developingcountries around the world.
Since becoming HHS secretary,and he used concerns about
a different pertussisvaccine as a justification
for pausing funding, forGavi internationally.
it will be very,very interesting and
I think, important.
(27:50):
both from a public healthstandpoint and politically
to see, how, Kennedyresponds responds to
this call from Cassidy.
and since talking aboutvaccines and Cassidy, I think,
you know, the other thingthat, to to point out that's
really important of course,is that, um, CDC's ACIP
which has been reconfiguredwith appointees from.
Secretary Kennedy willbe meeting this week,
(28:12):
Thursday and Friday.
There's gonna be a greatdeal of attention obviously
on, what they do.
Senator Cassidy actuallycalled for, the meeting
to be postponed.
Um, that doesn't seem to bein the cards, so, it's quite
possible we're gonna see.
A bigger showdown between,Kennedy and Cassidy over
vaccines and public healthissues going forward.
Jeff Cranmer (28:33):
All right.
Thanks for that Steve,Steve story, along with the
others that we spoke about,available at BioCentury.
Dot com.
thanks for tuning in.
If you've liked whatyou've heard, subscribe,
give us a thumbs up.
drop us a note.
we'd love to hear from you.
And a special thanks toKendall Square Orchestra.
(28:55):
Which provides the musicfor BioCentury this week.
the group is now, in its eighthseason, gearing up for its
kickoff concert tickets on sale.
The group connects scienceand technology professionals
and other members of theGreater Boston community to
collaborate, innovate, andinspire through music, while
supporting causes relatedto healthcare and education.
Eric Pierce (29:21):
BioCentury would like to thank IQVIA
Biotech for supporting theBioCentury This Week podcast.
Learn why IQVIA Biotech isproud to be the go-to CRO
supporting biotechs frominnovation to patient impact.
Visit IQVIABiotech.com.
[AI-generated transcript.]
Eric Pierce (00:02):
BioCentury This Week is brought to
you by IQVIA Biotech.
For biotech companies strivingto bring innovative therapies
to market and maximize patientimpact, IQVIA Biotech is
the trusted CRO of choice.
Backed by 25 years ofunparalleled experience
and deep therapeuticexpertise, our full-service
clinical developmentsolutions are purpose-built
(00:23):
to accelerate success.
IQVIA Biotech helpsearly-stage biotechs de-risk
by developing strategicclinical development plans,
guiding drug candidates alongthe most promising pathways.
Leverage data-driven modelsand dynamic tools to craft
a compelling value story andmaintain momentum through every
phase of drug development.
Jeff Cranmer (00:48):
Amid an exodus of pharmaceutical
companies, the new headof the U.K.'s regulatory
body, MHRA is focusing onthe country's strengths.
We will discuss what is going onat MHRA and more on the latest
BioCentury this week podcast.
(01:10):
I'm Jeff Cranmer, executiveeditor here and host of the
BioCentury this week podcast.
And joining meare my colleagues.
Simone Fishburn (01:19):
Simone Fishburn, Editor in Chief.
Steve Usdin (01:21):
Steve Usdin, Washington Editor.
Stephen Hansen (01:23):
Stephen Hansen, Director of
Biopharma Intelligence.
Jeff Cranmer (01:25):
Steve, welcome to the show.
I wanted to find out aboutyour conversation with
the new head of the MHRA.
Steve Usdin (01:34):
So, yeah, so I, I had an interview
with, Lawrence Tallon.
He's been on the jobabout five months.
basically what wetalked about is.
How does he plan toposition MHRA, in the
U.K. and, and, globally?
I think the summary wouldbe he wants to focus on
strengths, which for the U.K.
are, or science, cell andgene therapies, rare diseases,
vaccines, mRNA therapeutics.
(01:56):
and he's wants to also pursueand to continue to pursue a
policy which, MHRA has, has beenvery active in, which is, in
collaborating with regulators inother countries, for, uh, mutual
recognition and for reliance.
the idea be basically beingthat, regulators in middle and
smaller sized countries can,focus on their strengths and
(02:17):
kind of reinforce each other,both in terms of technology
and in terms of, um, regulatorycapacity for things like,
inspections and reviews.
Simone Fishburn (02:25):
Steve, so, Obviously we can't ignore the
news that's come out this week.
We're also on the cusp ofGrand Rounds, and we're gonna
have more to say at the endof the week about the feeling
on the ground here regardingMerck pulling out and the
pressure being put on bypharmas on the U.K. ecosystem.
Let's say specificallyon the government.
(02:46):
One thing I wanted to askyou, you know, confining
the conversation to this, isthat one of the complaints,
I mean obviously a lot ofit is drug pricing, but one
of the complaints is thatthe regulatory environment
is too unfriendly as well.
That was sort ofin Merck's list.
whether that actually is towhat degree that's actually
responsible for their decision,I don't know, To what degree
(03:07):
do you think that what LawrenceTallon is envisioning if
successful, would actuallyaddress, the barriers that
people see to regulation?
Steve Usdin (03:18):
Well, I, I think that one of the biggest problems
in the U.K. one of the biggestconcerns, is the same as, an
enormous concern that companieshave in the United States, which
is the time that it takes toget a, a clinical trial started.
and, um, to iterate and to getnew, um, first in human trials
on, um, iterated, drugs startedand, he is, he, he announced
(03:40):
goals there that, you know,basically would put the U.K.
in line with the United States.
It, it's not going to be asfast as China, it's not gonna
be fast as, um, as some othercountries probably, but his
goal is to have it, you know,similar to the United States.
So I think that would address.
Some of the major issues.
sense
Simone Fishburn (04:01):
do you think that's, under
ambitious, Steve, or doyou think that's realistic?
How, how would you rate that?
Steve Usdin (04:06):
I think it's realistic and I think that,
The talk about the, theregulatory, concerns in, in the
U.K. is probably just addingsomething to the laundry list.
But the truth is.
That reimbursement and coverageare the real issues that the
pharmas are concerned about.
Simone Fishburn (04:21):
Yeah, I think concerned is an understatement.
Furious might be, um, closerto what I think they are.
and, and, and you know, Ithink a lot of people have
said, and I think that there'sa lot of truth in this, that.
Merck per se, is tremendouslyunder pressure and
restructuring generally.
So a lot of things canbe true at the same time.
(04:42):
as I said, we'll, we'll comeback to this issue when we
talk to people on the ground.
Stephen and I are gonnabe at Grand Rounds in
Cambridge this week.
We have Patrick Vallance,Minister for Science in
conversation with Kate Bingham.
I am sure there will bequestions for him, so it's
gonna be an interesting,week to be here.
Steve Usdin (04:58):
and there's another dynamic at play, of course,
also, which is that companiesare under tremendous pressure
from the Trump administrationto be seen as investing
heavily, in the United States,in manufacturing and in R&D.
And there have been a wholestream of announcements
over the last few monthsof very large, investments
in both manufacturing andR&D in the United States.
(05:21):
Know, it is a zero sum game.
There's a certain, there'sonly a certain amount of
money that companies haveto invest globally, and if
they're under, strong pressureto invest more in the United
States, then that makes itmore difficult for them to
justify investments elsewhere.
Simone Fishburn (05:36):
Yeah.
And even though I keep sayingwe're not gonna talk about
it this week, just one morepoint on that front, which
is, you know, it's, there's noquestion that having pharmas.
Involved and on the ground is,a huge boost to the ecosystem.
I think the questionfor the U.K. is how
much is it a necessity?
So in the U.S. obviouslyhaving them in Boston
(05:58):
made a huge difference.
The China ecosystemhas actually managed to
create a lot of momentum.
Without necessarily havingR&D as a pillar of it
from the pharma companies.
And not all ecosystemsare the same.
There's some people whoare saying AI will make the
difference, and the U.K.
is strong in that.
So we'll see where it goes.
(06:18):
But, just coming backto where you started,
which is what LawrenceTallon is doing at MHRA.
I think that that is essential.
I think that, you know, that'sgot to be built regardless of
whether the government can,bring the pharmas back to the
table, because if they don'thave a efficient regulatory
environment, it's gonna bevirtually impossible to make
(06:41):
it a place where clinicaltrials are attractive to run.
Steve Usdin (06:45):
Well, and, and there's more to it also that,
you know, people should read,should read the interview and
the, the story that I did.
Simone Fishburn (06:49):
They should
Steve Usdin (06:51):
one one, of the things that he brought up,
which I thought was, was reallyinteresting is that if you
have an environment in whichthere's a great deal more
mutual reliance and mutualrecognition, then you can
envision a world in whichgetting an approval, for
example, a product approvalin the U.K. would unlock
much bigger markets.
If there's a, kind of adefault assumption, that, MHRA
(07:12):
approval is gonna unlock a,uh, approvals in, developing
markets, for example, um,and those markets are gonna
become increasingly important.
then that again makes,makes it more important
and more attractive,
Simone Fishburn (07:24):
'cause what you're saying is you're,
then not talking about apopulation of 60 million.
You're talking about apopulation of 60 million plus
whatever other regions opens up.
Right.
And that's verydifferent equation.
Absolutely.
Alright, so having saidwe wouldn't talk about it,
Jeff, let's go back to you.
Jeff Cranmer (07:40):
Simone, you mentioned Grand Rounds.
Well, it's the last call tojoin our conference in Cambridge
U.K., starting this Wednesday.
Stephen reluctantly, Oxfordman coming Grand Rounds is
gonna focus on how to makeearly stage R&D investible.
(08:02):
And how to overcome keybottlenecks in translation.
It's our third Grand Rounds.
our Chicago session was a bighit in June, debut meeting
last year in Nashville,Tennessee, now we're headed
to the U.K. There's been ajump in registration since
everyone returned from summer.
(08:24):
and it's gonna bea packed house.
There's a sold out presentingcompany track, sold out
academic poster session, anda great lineup of speakers
including Kate Bingham.
And James Sabry, the former,head of deal making at Roche
and Genentech, who is now atBioMarin here in California.
(08:47):
there'll also be two days ofpartnering and networking.
There's still timeto register at
BioCenturyGrandRoundsEurope.com.
You can also register onsite in Cambridge on the
afternoon of September 17th.
We'll be at the CambridgeUnion Society and
hope to see you there.
Simone Fishburn (09:07):
Jeff, just just one note.
We're at the Cambridge Union onWednesday night, but I believe
we will also take walk-in.
On Thursday, Friday, whichis at Churchill College.
Jeff Cranmer (09:17):
Churchill.
I've heard that name before.
Simone Fis (09:20):
and yes, and we will
Jeff Cranmer (09:21):
that fellow that would, uh, wake
up and drink champagne?
Simone Fishburn (09:25):
they, they they like, they do like this.
Churchill hit good dude here.
But, um, it, importantly,Jeff, I will be sending you
pictures of the buttery.
Jeff Cranmer (09:34):
I, I, you know, America, uh, say
what you will about it.
we don't have butteries hereand, uh, I, I think that might
be the cause of, uh, many ofthe problems in this country.
Where should we go from here?
Hey, why don't we head toWashington to find out about,
a new piece of legislation thatSteve, uncovered last week.
(09:59):
you loved the Bio Secure Act.
but wait, there's more Steve.
Steve Usdin (10:03):
So, the House of Representatives when
they passed the, NationalDefense Authorization Act,
included an amendment on theamendment, um, is called the
Securing American Funding andExpertise from Adversarial
Research Exploitation Act,otherwise known as the Safe
Research Act, sponsored byrepresentative John Moolenaar.
(10:24):
The idea is basically to makeit impossible for American
academics to collaboratewith academics in China.
what the legislation would doif it's enacted and there's
a lot of steps that have tohappen between now and then.
would basically say that, um, itwould be impossible to have NIH
funding for any researchers whocollaborate with researchers.
(10:47):
At institutions in China thatmeet certain criteria, and
the criteria are very broad.
Most universities thatscientists in the United States,
would have collaborators at,would meet, this criteria.
and basically you have,you'd be erecting a wall
between the United States andChina at an academic level.
and I think that it's somethingthat's of, of, of real concern.
(11:10):
To me, it's a manifestationof this idea that,
biotechnology and the bioeconomy have been defined
as national security issues.
That concept is attractive inpart because thinking about
biotechnology and bioeconomyas national security.
a way to get enthusiasmfor government support.
(11:31):
It's a way to shield, um, theindustry from cuts and from
some of the negative impactsof anti-science, antip,
pharma, and anti-governmentmovements in the United States.
But there's a flip side to it.
There's a difference betweensaying that an industry is a
strategic asset, which I thinkanybody would acknowledge that
biotech and, pharmaceuticalsis for the United States.
(11:53):
and that's different from sayingthat it's part of the defense
or the military sphere, whichmost of biotech and most of
of pharmaceuticals are not.
And the, the problem is,is that when you muddle
these definitions, then youget to a space like where
Representative Moolenaar is.
Where he says, you know,that it's a national security
threat to the United Statesfor American researchers
(12:16):
who are conducting researchon basic science, who are
advancing the frontiersof biology to collaborate
with researchers in China.
And it's not just a, a kindof a, feel good issue or
something that, um, thatyou think, oh, well, science
should be, should be open.
And, um, which of courseit, it should, but
they're very concrete.
(12:37):
negative consequences fromcutting off, collaborations
between the UnitedStates and and China.
There are papers that havebeen published based on these
collaborations, and bothparties bring really important
insights and resources to thetable and these collaborations.
Simone Fishburn (12:55):
so Steve, as you know, we are big fans
of, collaborations, globalcollaborations, cross border
ones, I think many peoplecan acknowledge that China is
almost past a tipping pointnow in terms of, uh, a little
bit, like we said before, it'scertainly better and healthier
for everybody to have thesecollaborations, but maybe
China is less dependent thanit was several years ago.
(13:19):
one of my questions to youis if you wanna handicap the
likelihood of this passing,and the reason I ask is that I
know that there are reports thatsort of fairly big figures have
been put in the appropriations,desired appropriations for NIH.
So I wanted to ask you tocomment on, on that whether
(13:40):
it's that there are membersof Congress who sort of
see the light and will whatwe would consider see the
light and will push back onthis, or whether you think
that, That we're really in acompletely new era, and those
voices just aren't there.
Steve Usdin (13:54):
You know, first just the kind of mechanics
of what has to happen next.
So this has passed the house.
In order for it to be enactedinto law, it, it has to get
into the final bill, whichis, uh, probably going to
be, passed in December.
you know, first the, theSenate is gonna pass a,
a version of the bill.
It's likely to be quitedifferent from the
house version, and thenthere's going to be.
(14:14):
you know, behind the scenesnegotiations between the House
and the Senate to come up witha final version of the bill.
We don't know how, howmuch people, in the house,
how much they, they'regoing to push for this.
whether there's gonna beany pushback in the Senate.
I don't know.
I think that shine the light,uh, shine some light on it,
is a good thing because itwill, uh, hopefully it will.
(14:35):
Encourage people to thinkabout it and to think
about the consequences.
My guess is that the vastmajority of, uh, members of
the house who voted for thishave no idea, what it is.
And they probably don'tunderstand what the consequences
would be of cutting off,scientific collaboration
between United States and China.
Either if all of that comesout, maybe won't happen.
I think that there'senthusiasm in in Congress.
(14:58):
In general, for disentangling,um, the United States
and China in any respectswhere that is possible.
and I think that they'll seescience and, um, technology as
a particularly ripe area for it.
And I think there's also kind ofa conflation between different
areas of science and technology.
The bill that the house passeddoesn't specifically call out
(15:18):
biotech or the life sciences,and I think that's probably why
it hasn't gotten any attentionbecause people don't realize it.
but it would havethose consequences.
Simone Fishburn (15:27):
I mean, I think certainly those of us
who think that American primacyisn't a given can envisage this.
In the long term, becominga huge own goal, right?
Basically the U.S. disentanglingitself, while Chinese
researchers can go makingdiscoveries and partnering
with other people all over theworld who aren't doing this.
(15:48):
So it, it's not necessarilya strategic benefit to
the U.S. to do this.
Jeff Cranmer (15:54):
Put it gently.
yeah.
I've noticed like Canadais advertising on, TV here
in the U.S. saying, Hey,why don't you move north?
We got a place for you.
So I'm sure a lot of scientistsare listening to that.
we're gonna go to a breakshortly, but first, BioCentury
and Advarra are running a surveytogether to better understand
(16:17):
cancer clinical trials.
want to help us identifybottlenecks and best practices
to improve trial execution?
Go to BioCentury survey.com.
The survey only takesfive minutes, and as a
bonus, respondents willget a complimentary copy
Of the findings.
(16:38):
And hey, don't forget,BioCentury's Back to School.
signature issue.
It's our signature issue.
It is out now.
And for immediateaccess, you can go to
BioCenturyBacktoSchool.com.
Steve did a, Kind of anepic seven part, plus,
podcast, re-imagining of,what FDA, should, could be.
(17:05):
and uh, if you go to that, youcan get access to BioCentury
as well as, Steve's piece,edited by my colleagues,
Selina Koch and SimoneFishburn, our editor in chief.
we will be back in a moment.
Alanna Farro (17:21):
BioCentury This Week is brought to you by
BioCentury Grand Rounds Europe.
Grand Rounds, BioCentury'sR&D conference, will make
its European debut in 2025.
Join us to debate keytranslational bottlenecks and
unlock scientific breakthroughswith commercial potential.
Connect with VCs, academicinnovators, and biopharma
(17:42):
R&D and BD leaders to explorecutting edge advancements
in early stage R&D as wedive into disease biology,
therapeutic modalities,and enabling technologies.
Join us for the inauguralBioCentury Grand Grounds
Europe in Cambridge.
U.K. the September 17th to 19th.
Register and learn more atBioCenturyGrandRoundsEurope.com.
Jeff Cranmer (18:04):
We're back.
Stephen, you have beenthinking about Insmed.
tell us what you're finding.
Stephen Hansen (18:11):
Yeah.
Thanks Jeff.
Insmed is a, uh, what I wouldsay is a maybe classic biotech
story in that it's a, nearly 40year going overnight success.
maybe just a very,very quick history.
You know, maybe this willsound familiar from a lot of
other success stories thattake a long time to, come.
Um.
So Insmed was foundedas a diabetes company.
(18:32):
and when that didn't work,it had, several reinventions
of itself from being a growthfactor company, to biosimilars.
And, you know, a lot of thiswas, like in lots of biotech
companies not successful.
And so, you know, at theend of 2008, Insmed found
itself, with a market cap of.
57 million and not areally clear path forward.
(18:55):
And so this is where,I think that the story
started to get interestingor, or not, depending
on, on your perspective.
So they did a very, very smalldeal where they brought in a,
uh, drug inhalation platform andstarted, working on the lead
program, which was basicallyan inhaled formulation of a
50 60-year-old antibiotic.
And that's partly why Ithink a lot of people may be.
have overlookedinmed for a while.
(19:17):
I mean, if you look 10 yearsback, that was the lead program.
They had a inhaled formulationof this antibiotic for an orphan
setting that they were runningthrough late stage trials.
And this was at a time when, youknow, everyone was focused on
PD ones or Car Ts or Crisper.
And so.
Wasn't exactly the, uh, maybethe sexiest pipeline, around.
(19:38):
And so I think that's maybepartly explains why they were,
they were largely overlooked.
but then, like lots ofthese companies, they came
across an asset that theywere able to find, you
know, new opportunity for.
So in 2016, they did adeal with AstraZeneca that
brought in a, DPP1 inhibitor.
Which had been developed forsort of pulmonary indications
(19:59):
and they found a new one for it.
A bronchiectasis ran a PhaseII trial, was successful in
the Phase II trial, and thenmoved into Phase III, and
that's really where thingsstarted to take off for them.
And that just readout last year.
So they had positive PhaseIII data in bronchiectasis
for two different doses.
And basically it's beenone of the hottest stocks
(20:22):
of the past several years.
almost every big specialistfund has an ownership stake
in them, and they are nowtrading just above $30 billion.
So it's, it's quite a remarkablesort of turnaround here from
being a largely, unknownor maybe not often talked
about company to now being.
Basically one of the hottestbiotechs, uh, in the sector.
Simone Fishburn (20:44):
So Stephen, I mean, as you say,
classical biotech story.
Of course, every companythat's not doing well
wants to have that end.
It doesn't alwayswork out that way.
I think you earlier sortof referred to it as.
Similar to the Horizon,story, and that that ended
up being a takeout by Angen,of course, for 24 billion.
Stephen Hansen (21:07):
28 billion, I think was the
takeout for Horizon and
Simone Fishburn (21:10):
Obviously, the question now is, does this make
Insmed a prime takeout target?
And maybe you can expandon the analogy with
Horizon for the audience.
Stephen Hansen (21:19):
Sure.
No, I think it's a goodanalogy and I think there's a
good parallel here, potentialbecause, so the reason I, I,
I see similarities betweenInsmed and Horizon Pharma
was because, Horizon Pharma,for all intents and purposes,
was a, you know, fairlysmall specialty pharma, that.
Also had unlicensed a largelysort of, you know, discarded
drug that was targeting IGF,target that had long been
(21:42):
sort of gone after and hadof lost its luster per se.
But they found a new placein, thyroid eye disease where
you could use it, and it notonly worked in the clinic,
but proved to be a muchlarger and more lucrative
commercial opportunity.
Than anybody had, reallyanticipated and that sort
of shot Horizon up to, tobeing this sort of large cap
(22:03):
company that, as you say waseventually taken up by Amgen.
Insmed is is similar in thatthey also acquired an asset, as
I said, and has now, you knowwhat, they are projecting to be
potentially a $5 billion peaksales in bronchiectasis alone.
an indication that, doesn'thave any approved drugs.
They're also looking atexpansion opportunities
into chronic rhinosinusitiswithout nasal polyps.
(22:26):
And Simone, one of yourfavorite indications
indications hidradenitis
Simone Fishburn (22:31):
It is so fluent in that.
Stephen Hansen (22:34):
And, um, you know, looking at a
sort of pipeline in, ina product just there.
But then on top of that, theyare getting some other assets
out of their inhaled, platformthat they had acquired in 2010.
They also have an inhaledformulation of treprostinil,
that just had positive PhaseII B data in, uh, pulmonary
arterial hypertension.
So you kind of lined up,they have one blockbuster
(22:57):
now coming that just gotapproved, for bronchiectasis
They have another one that'sgoing into Phase III that they
think has 2 billion potential.
So, at a $30 billionvaluation, they kind of look
like they might be maybetwo big be acquired at this
with, with multiple drivers.
Simone Fishburn (23:12):
I mean, they'd be very expensive
to buy What you are sayingis that the value isn't
exclusively in the lead asset.
I mean, maybe predominantly,and of course, and Jeff can
give you the the URL of course,but this really does relate
to our back to school essayof two years ago where we
talked about the tier jumpers.
(23:34):
And this baby jumped from theunder $5 billion tier to the
20 plus billion dollars tier.
And you know, who knows?
Maybe marching to that50 plus, who knows?
Stephen Hansen (23:45):
It's moving quick, but it's, I, I,
I, I, I, want to go back tothe Horizon parallel as well,
because I think that's also apotential road that this goes.
You can foresee a scenario inwhich, and something maybe that
that Insmed obviously needs tomaybe, protect against, because
the reason Horizon ended upgetting acquired is because
they essentially got a littlebit too far ahead of themselves
(24:05):
in terms of their guidance forthe growth that they were gonna
see from Tepezza there, thatlead assets and effectively.
guided for too quick a growth.
That growth didn't show upand so they had to pull back
the stock then pulled backand it reached a point to
where it basically became,an acquisition target.
And Amgen was able totake it out, as you
said, for 28 billion.
(24:26):
And you could foresee a scenarioin which something similar
could happen if in Insmed is tooaggressive with their guidance
on the growth for Brinsupri.
And so I think that's somethingthey need to, um, you know.
Be wary of, you know, take thelong, you know, good advice of,
you know, under, under promiseand over deliver rather than
being too aggressive here.
But, 5 billion peak salesfor one indication here
Simone Fishburn (24:47):
I mean,
Stephen Hansen (24:48):
feels pretty aggressive to me.
we'll see where this goes.
Simone Fishburn (24:51):
but we do know, I mean, with
all the conversation.
About pharmas needing latestage assets and the fact
that there aren't that many ofthem, what's 10 billion here?
Are they,
Stephen Hansen (25:02):
billion thing, 30 is another.
This
Simone Fishburn (25:04):
they, yeah.
Well, I meant in of DI meantin terms of differential,
but I mean, let's justacknowledge one more thing.
It's also a different regulatoryenvironment, so, in that
takeout there was a sort of.
FTC that made it take forever,and I think that there was
some kind of oversight ofthat, whereas I think now it's
considered a more friendlyenvironment for takeouts.
Stephen Hansen (25:24):
True.
Yeah.
No, I think you're right.
But it's, again, I, I, Ijust think it's been really
interesting diving intothe, diving into the past
of Insmed and, and sort of.
Looking at this, successstory and, you know, something
that, is one of these successstories that we should
celebrate from our sector.
This is one of the areaswhere, you know, it's, it's
fun to see a, see a company,uh, get a win like this.
Simone Fishburn (25:42):
And a disease that's had nothing
get the breakthrough.
Stephen Hansen (25:45):
That's right.
Jeff Cranmer (25:46):
All right.
Thank you for that.
Stephen.
Stephen, We'll have a storyout, early this week, on Insmed.
And, as Simone mentioned,our Back to School, uh, two
years ago focused on tearjumpers, building the road
to sustainable biotechs.
if you'd like to checkthat out, drop me a line.
(26:07):
and, uh, we can set youup with a free trial
and it's a great story.
We look at 17 growth companies,and Simone, Stephen and Lauren
Martz, wrote that piece.
it's quite interesting lookingat companies like Insmed
as they, jump up the ranks.
When Stephen told me he wasworking on the Insmed story,
(26:28):
I was, shocked that theywere all of a sudden, uh,
you know, like, your kids,like all of a sudden they've.
They grow up so fast.
Steve, uh, quickly beforewe go, signs of life
from Senator Cassidy.
what's going on?
Steve Usdin (26:44):
Senator Cassidy wrote a letter to.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. TheHHS Secretary last week,
calling on him to publiclyendorse the pertussis vaccine.
Actually a combinationvaccine that includes,
pertussis antigen.
Cassidy noted that there's,an outbreak of pertussis
in his state, Louisiana,that's resulted in deaths
(27:05):
and hospitalizations and,that it's growing in other
states in the United States.
It will be interesting to seewhat, Kennedy's response to
this is for years, in his life.
Before he was at HHS, hecast doubts about, the
pertussis vaccine, aboutits use in the United
States and internationally.
he canceled or postponed,funding for Gavi, the
(27:29):
organization that's it,is the largest funder of,
vaccination in developingcountries around the world.
Since becoming HHS secretary,and he used concerns about
a different pertussisvaccine as a justification
for pausing funding, forGavi internationally.
it will be very,very interesting and
I think, important.
(27:50):
both from a public healthstandpoint and politically
to see, how, Kennedyresponds responds to
this call from Cassidy.
and since talking aboutvaccines and Cassidy, I think,
you know, the other thingthat, to to point out that's
really important of course,is that, um, CDC's ACIP
which has been reconfiguredwith appointees from.
Secretary Kennedy willbe meeting this week,
(28:12):
Thursday and Friday.
There's gonna be a greatdeal of attention obviously
on, what they do.
Senator Cassidy actuallycalled for, the meeting
to be postponed.
Um, that doesn't seem to bein the cards, so, it's quite
possible we're gonna see.
A bigger showdown between,Kennedy and Cassidy over
vaccines and public healthissues going forward.
Jeff Cranmer (28:33):
All right.
Thanks for that Steve,Steve story, along with the
others that we spoke about,available at BioCentury.
Dot com.
thanks for tuning in.
If you've liked whatyou've heard, subscribe,
give us a thumbs up.
drop us a note.
we'd love to hear from you.
And a special thanks toKendall Square Orchestra.
(28:55):
Which provides the musicfor BioCentury this week.
the group is now, in its eighthseason, gearing up for its
kickoff concert tickets on sale.
The group connects scienceand technology professionals
and other members of theGreater Boston community to
collaborate, innovate, andinspire through music, while
supporting causes relatedto healthcare and education.
Eric Pierce (29:21):
BioCentury would like to thank IQVIA
Biotech for supporting theBioCentury This Week podcast.
Learn why IQVIA Biotech isproud to be the go-to CRO
supporting biotechs frominnovation to patient impact.
Visit IQVIABiotech.com.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!