Older Billionaires Funding Biotechs Focused on Longevity

It’s not exactly new that a whole raft of billionaires have thrown money into biotech companies. For example, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Google co-founder Larry Pagerecently pledged $12 million to research for a universal flu vaccine. Priscilla Chan, a physician, and her husband, Facebook chief executive officer Mark Zuckerberg, created in 2016 the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, pledging $3 billion towards basic since research over the following 10 years. It has the goal of curing all diseases, or preventing them or managing them, by the end of the century.

It has been noted that a number of billionaires—at least six—who are fifty years or older in age, have been investing in health care and longevity-related startup companies. Bill Gates, 62, is one of them, and his foundation spends millions investing in healthcare-related projects, but most of them are related to solving health problems worldwide, especially ones that afflict developing countries. Longevity, per se, isn’t the focus.

Recently, Michael Bloomberg, 76, invested in Finch Therapeutics Group via his family office, Willett Advisors. Finch is working to develop microbial therapies—which is to say, developing strains of microorganisms that can be used as therapeutics to change a person’s microbiota. The company merged with Crestovo in 2017, which has CP101, currently being evaluated in patients with recurrent C. difficile infections.

Richard Branson, 67, founder of Virgin Group and chairman of Virgin Hyperloop One,invested in Doctor On Demand, a tech platform that offers telemedicine visits between doctors and patients. Branson was one of the participants in a $21 million fundraising round led by Venrock, with participating from Shasta Ventures.

In a provocatively titled Observer article, “6 Billionaires Whose Fear of Death Is Fueling a Boom In Biotech Startups,” Sissi Cao also mentions Tim Disney, 57, the great-nephew of Walt Disney,and Andrew Russell, 56, the Duke of Bedford, invested $8 million in Skyhawk Therapeutics,which is focused on developing treatments for cancer and neurological disease; Jeff Bezos, 54, Amazon founder, invested over $100 million in UNITY Biotechnology, which is focused on aging, and Peter Thiel, 50, co-led a $10 million investment round in ChemomAb, an Israel-based company working on treatments for immune system disorders.

Cao quotes a Family Capital article, saying, “That realization that things are beginning to increasingly move in the direction of old age often leads individuals to try to at least slow down the aging process. If you’re very rich, apart from staying fit and eating a healthy diet, a way of trying to prolong one’s age is to invest in new medications that might just increase one’s life—and also make a lot of money in the process.”

That’s probably true, as far as it goes. None of these people are noted for being stupid or throwing money at lousy investments, however. And yet, when you’re talking about someone like Richard Branson, who has a net worth of approximately $5 billion, or Jeff Bezos, with a net worth of about $130.7 billion, investing a few million dollars in a biotech startup doesn’t seem like they’re desperately investing in something that will let them live forever (or die trying). It sounds far more like they think it might be a good investment and potentially a worthwhile thing to invest in.

And what to make of Mark Zuckerberg, who is 33 years old, and his wife, Priscilla Chan, who is also 33? Do these relative youngsters feel death looming at their door? It’s more likely that Chan, in particular, as a physician, understands that there is a great deal of movement that can be made in biopharma and healthcare if resources are provided. And it just might turn out to be a good investment as well—even though biotech investment is wildly volatile. After all, if any of them had invested $1,000 in Gilead Sciences’ initial public offering (IPO) in January 1992, that investment was worth $100,000 in 2015, or a return on investment of 18,927 percent.

It’s probably true that as one passes one’s fifties, health and longevity becomes of more interest. But it certainly doesn’t appear to be exclusive to this age group. Take, for example, Bill Maris,42. The founder and former chief executive officer of GV (Google Ventures), one of the other companies he founded was a Google/Alphabet company, Calico, whose very focus is combating aging and related diseases.

Maybe the younger entrepreneurs want to live forever, too.

https://bit.ly/2IoWn57

U.S. judge blocks DEA from suspending drug distributor over opioid sales

A federal judge blocked the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration from suspending a Louisiana drug distributor from selling controlled substances over allegations it failed to identify suspicious orders of opioids that were diverted for illicit uses.

U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Foote in Shreveport, Louisiana, on Tuesday entered a temporary restraining order blocking the DEA from enforcing an order issued last week that immediately suspended Morris & Dickson Co’s registration.

The DEA’s order marked the first time during President Donald Trump’s administration that it had moved to immediately block narcotic sales by a distributor as the agency attempts to combat a national opioid abuse epidemic.

A DEA probe focusing on purchases of the highly addictive painkillers oxycodone and hydrocodone showed that, in some cases, pharmacies were allowed to buy as much as six times the quantity of narcotics they would normally order, the agency said.

The DEA on Friday announced it was suspending the registration of privately-held Morris & Dickson, saying the distributer failed to properly identify large, suspicious orders of drugs sold to independent pharmacies.

However in a brief order, Foote wrote that the drug wholesale distributor had demonstrated a substantial likelihood that it would be able to prove the agency’s action was “arbitrary and capricious.”

The judge scheduled a May 22 hearing to determine whether she should issue a preliminary injunction that would further block the DEA’s action.

The U.S. government is trying to crack down on opioid abuse through a number of measures, including a proposal last month to tighten rules governing the amount of prescription opioid painkillers that drugmakers can manufacture in a given year.

Paul Dickson, Morris & Dickson’s president, in a statement said the ruling “means that tens of thousands of patients, many of whom are critical care, are able to get their desperately-needed medications.”

Family-owned Morris & Dickson was founded in 1841 and is the largest independently owned and privately held drug wholesale distributor in the United States, according to its court filing.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 42,000 people died nationwide from opioid overdoses in 2016, the last year with publicly available data.

https://reut.rs/2wssU5t

Hospitals warn patients: Yoga pants can cause serious burns in MRI machines

You already know that wearing yoga pants can help you burn fat, if you do the work. What you may not know: They can also burn your skin.

Patients across the country are being told to ditch their Lycra and spandex in favor of paper gowns or cotton T-shirts before undergoing an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging). Stony Brook University’s hospitals in New York, the University of California, Los Angeles and Mount Sinai in New York are just a few of the major institutions that have introduced this policy in recent years.

A sign warning MRI patients on the wall of a medical facility in Pennsylvania.

These tiny metal threads keep odor and bacteria from building up in clothes as people do their downward dog pose. Hospitals, on the other hand, want to prevent the smell of burning. Warning signs—some mentioning the popular yoga clothing brand Lululemon Athletica—are plastered in radiologist offices across the country. “These fibers can burn you if worn in the MRI scanner,” one reads.

‘I suspect many patients are unaware of the clothing risks. Even very comfortable clothing can present unnecessary risks. Safety must come first.’

Bradley Delman, an associate professor of radiology at Mount Sinai

Radiologists say patients are often taken by surprise when they’re asked to change out of their Lycra and spandex into something far more comfortable (and safe). “I suspect many patients are unaware of the clothing risks,” said Bradley Delman, an associate professor of radiology at Mount Sinai. “Even very comfortable clothing can present unnecessary risks. Safety must come first.”

If more patients were aware of the risks, they’d leave their yoga pants at home. Patients can get burned because of a process similar to what happens during magnetic induction cooking, said Haifang Li, an image scientist in the radiology department at the Stony Brook School of Medicine in New York. Even metal fibers in underwear can burn the patient’s skin, Li said.

Radiologists have long told patients that they shouldn’t wear any metallic clothing or jewelry, but more have banned athleisure within the last five years. In fact, UCLA’s medical facility specifically prohibited clothing brands including LululemonLULU, +0.77% Gap’s GPS, +1.71%  Athleta brand and Columbia Sportswear Co.’sCOLM, -0.15% Omni-Heat clothing.

A selection of Lululemon’s products are created with “Silverescent” technology, a fabric that incorporates silver-bonded threads to inhibit the growth of odor-causing bacteria on the garment, a company spokesperson said. Consumers wondering whether their athleisure contains silver microfibers can check the product’s labels or look up the product online.

Unfortunately, one 11-year-old girl found out the hard way. Her case was published in 2012 in the American Journal of Neuroradiology. She was sedated during an MRI for scoliosis, but when she woke up, she said she felt burning on her skin. She received a second-degree burn, which the researchers determined came from her undershirt reacting with the MRI machine.

The shirt had silver microfibers that weren’t detected before the test with a wand metal detector. In this case, the shirt’s label did not mention the presence of silver microfibers, the study said. The authors said this was possibly the first reported case of MRI-related burns associated with clothing containing invisible silver microfibers.

Patients can be burned because of a process similar to what happens during induction cooking. Metal produces extra heat in a magnetic field.

Haifang Li, an image scientist at the Stony Brook School of Medicine in New York

“Among the injuries sustained during [magnetic resonance] imaging examination are numerous cases of thermal burns,” the researchers wrote. “Because of normal MRI heating effects and safety constraints, patients are encouraged to change into hospital garments or wear loose-fitting non-metal-containing clothing for their examinations.”

The girl’s shirt, which she had been wearing under a back brace, was from the National Orthotics and Prosthetics Company store in Boston, Mass. Staff at the store said they were made aware of that incident and the company’s chief executive, Thomas Morrissey, said it was a “one-of-a kind incident that had never occurred before, and hasn’t since.”

Since that incident, the company has added more product details to labels and introduced new fabrics, Morrissey said. Today, only 35% of sales of the shirt style worn by the girl in the MRI machine contain silver microfibers, he said.

‘I was getting a burning sensation so strong that I had to press the emergency button for them to stop the machine and pull me out.’

Jenn Marr, a patient who felt a burning sensation during an MRI in 2014

Columbia Sportswear Co.’s COLM, -0.15%   Omni-Heat Reflective line uses an aluminum foil in its fabric, a company spokesman said. That’s the only Columbia clothing line that has any metallic fibers. Those fibers are actually visible and “quite shiny and obvious,” he said. (Athleta, a women’s athletic clothing company based in San Francisco, did not respond to a request for comment.)

Lululemon was cited in a 2014 case, when another woman, Jenn Marr, felt a burning sensation during an MRI while wearing the company’s yoga pants. Marr was not sedated during the procedure and after 15 minutes alerted the radiologist. The machine was turned off and Marr was not seriously harmed. “I was getting a burning sensation so strong that I had to press the emergency button for them to stop the machine and pull me out,” she told GlobalNews, a Canadian news site.

What happens to these silver threads during an MRI?

Medical professionals ask patients to remove all metal from their bodies because MRI machines use electromagnetism and radio waves—effectively turning them into a powerful magnet, according to the American Society of Neuroradiology (ASN). The waves are so powerful that they can cause some metals to move, which is why they may not be safe for people with cardiac pacemakers and metallic implants.

And it’s not just yoga pants that lead to burning during MRIs. Some tattoos can burn the skin in an MRI machine, according to researchers at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo. Certain tattoo pigments have metallic compounds that react badly in the MRI. Especially risky tattoos are ones that have black pigment or any other pigments containing iron oxide, the researchers noted.

A 48-year-old man was burned in an MRI machine simply because his thighs were pressed closely together, according to the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine. When skin is touching skin, it can cause the MRI to emit high-powered electromagnetic radiofrequency pulses. Another unexpected culprit: Nicotine patches, which can trap water against the skin and burn a patient during an MRI.

How can you tell if your clothing has metal fibers?

Other signs of metallic fibers: Clothing that says “anti-microbial” or “anti-bacterial” in the label should be avoided, because it uses “silver technology,” which contains metal, said Alison Matthews David, an assistant professor at Ryerson University in Toronto, who studies how clothing can impact health.

One problem for consumers: So many athletic lines use their own terms for their fabrics, it’s almost impossible for consumers to keep up with all the types available, David said. “Unless you’re a really careful consumer, you might not know what’s in your clothes,” she said.

‘Unless you’re a really careful consumer, you might not know what’s in your clothes. Wear your good, old-fashioned T-shirt and sweatpants.’

Alison Matthews David, assistant professor at Ryerson University in Toronto

And often, the metal materials in the clothing aren’t visible, especially as technology has improved, she said. So there may be no indication that the fabric contains metal. “Wear your good, old-fashioned T-shirt and sweatpants if you still want to be comfortable,” she said.

This isn’t the first time scientists have said athletic clothing is harmful. Clothing that is made from synthetic materials—which includes many athletic lines—is more harmful to the environment than natural fibers, because they aren’t biodegradable. When consumers wash the clothing, small fibers come loose and end up in the air and in waterways, environmental experts say.

https://on.mktw.net/2jMpelW

Eiger started at buy by B. Riley FBR

Eiger BioPharmaceuticals initiated with a Buy at B. Riley FBR. B. Riley FBR analyst Madhu Kumar started Eiger BioPharmaceuticals with a Buy rating and $24 price target. The analyst has “reasonable conviction” in the opportunity for the company’s hepatitis and virus franchise.

https://bit.ly/2ryoy75

Spark target upped by BMO

Spark Therapeutics price target raised to $78 from $64 at BMO Capital. BMO Capital analyst Matthew Luchini raised his price target on Spark Therapeutics to $78 and kept his Outperform rating after its Q1 results. The analyst notes that the company’s Luxturna sales, as well as progress in payer agreements and approvals, are encouraging, adding that patient identification will be key in maximizing the program’s opportunity. Luchini also cites continued investor focus on SPK-8011 for HemA, where data are expected in Q3

https://bit.ly/2Irqxod

Amedisys target hiked by Craig-Hallum

Amedisys price target raised to $82 from $69 at Craig-Hallum. Craig-Hallum analyst Kevin Ellich raised his price target for Amedisys to $82 from $69 after the company’s Q1 results beat estimates driven by solid same-store home health and hospice volume growth, better than expected home health revenue per episode growth, and EBITDA margin expansion in each of its business segments. The analyst reiterates a Buy rating on the shares.

https://bit.ly/2G23JpK

Haemonetics target upped by Barrington

Haemonetics price target raised to $90 from $71 at Barrington. Barrington analyst Michael Petusky raised his price target for Haemonetics to $90 citing the company’s “solid” Q4 results and “strong” fiscal 2019 guidance. The analyst has increasing confidence that Haemonetics is executing against its key strategic goals. He keeps an Outperform rating on the shares.

https://bit.ly/2I8nluc