Led by Tilray, the U.S.-listed grower that went public in July, the shares of Canada’s pot producers skyrocketed by Wednesday, then gave most of their gains back, Bill Alpert writes in this week’s edition of Barron’s. Comparisons between marijuana stocks and the Bitcoin bubble are apt, the report adds. Canada’s licensed marijuana producers begin recreational sales on October 17 and they have acres of greenhouses in bloom, but their stock prices have been weakly tethered to business fundamentals for months now, and last week’s blow-off was all the proof needed that the trading has become irrational, Alpert contends.
Sunday, September 23, 2018
Medtronic presents 3-year peripheral arterial disease data
Medtronic announced data that continues to reinforce the safety, durability, and consistency of the IN.PACT Admiral drug-coated balloon in real-world patients with peripheral arterial disease. Three-year real-world results from the full clinical cohort of the IN.PACT Global Study and one-year data from the Total IN.PACT pooled imaging and propensity analyses were presented at the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe annual meeting and the 30th Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics conference, the annual scientific symposium of the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, respectively. The freedom from clinically-driven target lesion revascularization rate calculated using Kaplan Meier survival estimates was 76.9% in a real-world patient cohort with a mean lesion length of 12.09 +/- 9.54 cm, 18.0% in-stent restenosis, 35.5% occluded lesions, and 39.9% diabetic subjects. Additionally, the proportion of patients undergoing repeat procedures were low through three years. Total IN.PACT combined independently adjudicated data from a total of 1,837 patients treated with IN.PACT Admiral DCB from all IN.PACT Admiral randomized clinical trials and real-world studies from 147 sites across 28 countries. The analyses presented today at TCT specifically looked at two different groups – a core laboratory-adjudicated imaging cohort and a propensity matched imaging cohort. The data showed that IN.PACT Admiral DCB demonstrated consistently superior patency and freedom from clinically-driven target lesion revascularization compared to standard PTA alone. The propensity analysis matched one PTA subject with up to four IN.PACT Admiral DCB subjects based on baseline variables. The propensity-matched analysis showed a patency rate of 90.5% for the IN.PACT Admiral DCB as compared to 53.8% for PTA and a freedom from CD-TLR rate of 96.9% compared to 80.7% for PTA. Additional safety and effectiveness outcomes from the DCB arm also included low rates of thrombosis and CD-TLR, and no occurrences of major target limb amputation at one year.
Novartis: Positive Phase 3 data on macular degeneration med
Novartis announced a new data analysis showing that
retinal fluid was detected less often in patients treated with brolucizumab
(RTH258) 6 mg versus aflibercept over four visits between weeks 36 to 48[1].
Retinal fluid is a key marker of disease activity in neovascular age-related
macular degeneration (nAMD)[2]. The data, from pre-specified secondary endpoints
of the Phase III HAWK and HARRIER trials[1], were presented at EURETINA 2018 as
a follow-up to data presented in November 2017.
retinal fluid was detected less often in patients treated with brolucizumab
(RTH258) 6 mg versus aflibercept over four visits between weeks 36 to 48[1].
Retinal fluid is a key marker of disease activity in neovascular age-related
macular degeneration (nAMD)[2]. The data, from pre-specified secondary endpoints
of the Phase III HAWK and HARRIER trials[1], were presented at EURETINA 2018 as
a follow-up to data presented in November 2017.
The data show that brolucizumab 6 mg had superior fluid resolution versus
aflibercept over four visits during weeks 36 to 48. The 36- to 48- week analysis
is noteworthy because it provides insight into the effect of maintenance
treatment, an important clinical focus for a chronic disease like nAMD.
Additionally, the analysis accounts for dosing interval differences between the
two medicines. Due to the unique design of the HAWK and HARRIER trials,
brolucizumab patients were dosed at various intervals, namely q12w with some
adjusted to q8w based on disease activity. Aflibercept patients were dosed at
q8w, per the label at the time of trial initiation.
aflibercept over four visits during weeks 36 to 48. The 36- to 48- week analysis
is noteworthy because it provides insight into the effect of maintenance
treatment, an important clinical focus for a chronic disease like nAMD.
Additionally, the analysis accounts for dosing interval differences between the
two medicines. Due to the unique design of the HAWK and HARRIER trials,
brolucizumab patients were dosed at various intervals, namely q12w with some
adjusted to q8w based on disease activity. Aflibercept patients were dosed at
q8w, per the label at the time of trial initiation.
In the pre-specified secondary analyses for weeks 36 to 48, patients treated
with brolucizumab 6 mg in the HAWK and HARRIER trials had significantly fewer
visits in which intraretinal fluid (IRF)/subretinal fluid (SRF) was observed. In
HAWK, 47.5% of patients treated with brolucizumab 6 mg q12w or adjusted to q8w
had no visits in which IRF/SRF was detected, compared to 42.5% of aflibercept
patients (P=0.0012, reflecting distribution across all visits during weeks 36
through 48)[1]. In HARRIER, 53% of patients treated with brolucizumab 6 mg had
no visits in which IRF/SRF was detected, compared to 45.5% of aflibercept
patients (P=0.0001, reflecting distribution across all visits during weeks 36
through 48)[1]. Importantly, more than half of brolucizumab 6 mg patients were
maintained on q12w dosing until week 48.
with brolucizumab 6 mg in the HAWK and HARRIER trials had significantly fewer
visits in which intraretinal fluid (IRF)/subretinal fluid (SRF) was observed. In
HAWK, 47.5% of patients treated with brolucizumab 6 mg q12w or adjusted to q8w
had no visits in which IRF/SRF was detected, compared to 42.5% of aflibercept
patients (P=0.0012, reflecting distribution across all visits during weeks 36
through 48)[1]. In HARRIER, 53% of patients treated with brolucizumab 6 mg had
no visits in which IRF/SRF was detected, compared to 45.5% of aflibercept
patients (P=0.0001, reflecting distribution across all visits during weeks 36
through 48)[1]. Importantly, more than half of brolucizumab 6 mg patients were
maintained on q12w dosing until week 48.
“Retinal fluid is an important marker of disease activity and the need for
treatment. These new data give physicians even more insight into the robustness
of the 48 week anatomical findings and support the overall impact brolucizumab
has on key measures of retinal fluid, including IRF/SRF, sub-retinal pigment
epithelial fluid and central subfield thickness,” said Dirk Sauer, Development
Unit Head, Novartis Ophthalmology. “These results were noted even while more
than half of brolucizumab 6 mg patients were receiving treatment every 12 weeks
at week 48, further reinforcing our confidence in brolucizumab’s superior fluid
resolution and supporting our goal of reimagining care for people with nAMD.”
treatment. These new data give physicians even more insight into the robustness
of the 48 week anatomical findings and support the overall impact brolucizumab
has on key measures of retinal fluid, including IRF/SRF, sub-retinal pigment
epithelial fluid and central subfield thickness,” said Dirk Sauer, Development
Unit Head, Novartis Ophthalmology. “These results were noted even while more
than half of brolucizumab 6 mg patients were receiving treatment every 12 weeks
at week 48, further reinforcing our confidence in brolucizumab’s superior fluid
resolution and supporting our goal of reimagining care for people with nAMD.”
Companies Buy Earnings Gains by Buying Back Stock
Companies’ record stock repurchases this year are causing profits to appear stronger and fueling the stock market’s record run.
A key driver in the surge of stock buybacks was last December’s tax overhaul, which lowered companies’ tax bills and freed up funds that many companies are using for share repurchases.
S&P 500 companies bought back a record $189 billion of their own shares in the first quarter, and a similar number — if not more — is expected for the second quarter, according S&P Dow Jones Indices. By contrast, S&P 500 buybacks totaled no more than $137 billion in any of the six quarters before the tax overhaul.
Stock buybacks make profits appear better by boosting per-share earnings, a metric that investors frequently use to justify a company’s stock price. Buybacks reduce a company’s share count, spreading the profits across fewer shares. As a result, companies can report a bigger percentage increase in per-share earnings than the profit results alone may show.
Among the more aggressive companies in buying back stock, Apple Inc. repurchased 112.8 million shares in the quarter that ended in June, contributing 5 cents to its earnings of $2.34 a share. Union Pacific Corp. repurchased about 4% of its shares in the second quarter, helping earnings per share climb substantially faster than net income. Thanks to buybacks, Southwest Airlines Co.’s quarterly per-share earnings rose even though its profit fell from a year earlier.
For the S&P 500, per-share earnings in the second quarter rose about 25% from a year ago — a full 2 percentage points faster than net income, according to data from Thomson Reuters. “It would be fair to assume it is all from buybacks,” said David Aurelio, senior research analyst at Thomson Reuters.
The higher per-share earnings have helped lead investors to pay more for stocks. The S&P 500 index is trading at record highs after gaining about 10% this year.
“Investors need to realize what they’re paying a premium for,” said Howard Silverblatt, senior index analyst at S&P Dow Jones Indices.
In all, dozens of large companies bought back 4% or more of their shares outstanding in the 12 months ended in June, according to data from S&P Dow Jones Indices. The resulting boosts to earnings might seem small in any given quarter, but they add up — Apple’s buybacks also added 8 cents a share in the March quarter, for instance. And companies also have started big new buyback programs, suggesting earnings-per-share increases will continue.
The buybacks aren’t necessarily done for the express purpose of increasing per-share earnings. Many companies say they want to return excess capital to shareholders. Others intend to offset new shares issued to employees as compensation.
The per-share earnings increases generated by stock buybacks are low quality, inflating results without underlying substance, said Gregory Milano, chief executive of Fortuna Advisors, a financial consulting firm that has examined buyback trends. “It has less value.”
Companies play down the buyback effect. They say their earnings are strong even without buybacks, and that while the buybacks add to per-share earnings, the effect is clear to investors and baked into the analyst earnings estimates that drive stock prices.
Apple pointed to its past statements that its earnings growth is accelerating and that tax reform “enables us to deploy our global cash more efficiently,” leading it to put forward plans to create 20,000 U.S. jobs and invest $350 billion in U.S. operations over the next five years.
Union Pacific’s buybacks contributed 9 cents to its second-quarter per-share earnings, helping that metric to climb 37%, while net income rose 29% from a year ago. The railroad’s finance chief, Robert Knight, said the buybacks “represent the return of excess cash to our shareholders and are consistent with guidance we provided to the financial-analyst community.”
Southwest Airlines’ second-quarter net income excluding items declined 2.1% from a year ago. On a per-share basis, however, it rose 2.4%, in part because the company has repurchased 28.3 million shares in the past year. Southwest said its per-share earnings growth “has been driven primarily by the strong financial performance of our robust network.”
As the economic cycle grinds on, Mr. Milano said, companies may find it harder to show earnings growth even as they face increased pressure from shareholders to do so–“and so buybacks start to look more attractive.”
The buyback effect adds to the earnings boost companies are already seeing because the U.S. cut its corporate tax rate to 21% from 35%. Union Pacific’s second-quarter effective rate, for example, declined to 22.1% from 37.5% a year ago, before the tax overhaul. At some companies, the tax cut has accounted for half or more of reported profits.
The benefits to per-share earnings from buybacks can help a company’s result compare more favorably to Wall Street forecasts.
In each of the past two quarters, big buybacks by Cisco Systems Inc. increased its adjusted per-share earnings by 2 cents. Each time, the networking giant’s total results surpassed analysts’ consensus expectations by a penny.
Cisco said its buybacks are incorporated into the earnings per share guidance it provides to analysts. “This is not a quality of earnings issue, and it is inaccurate to state that we would have otherwise ‘missed’ EPS targets,” a company representative said.
Experts say when companies do guide analysts on their buyback plans, the effect on estimates is imprecise. For instance, buybacks earlier in a quarter make a bigger difference in per-share earnings, because such results are calculated using average shares outstanding. Companies, though, don’t typically forecast the timing of buybacks.
In the first quarter, just after the tax overhaul, a record 78% of S&P 500 companies reported earnings above analysts’ expectations, according to FactSet. The second quarter then beat that record, with 80%.
Polyunsaturated fatty acids for depression? Some evidence
Treatment with omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) may decrease symptoms of anxiety in patients with a range of conditions, including borderline personality disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), new research suggests.
Dr Kuan-Pin Su
In a systematic review and meta-analysis, both placebo-controlled and non-placebo-controlled trials showed that omega-3 had at least some effect on patients with anxiety.
This treatment may provide a safer option than “highly addictive” anxiolytics in some patients, lead author Kuan-Pin Su, MD, PhD, vice dean and professor, College of Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan, told Medscape Medical News.
“For patients who are not responsive to traditional anxiety treatment, such as antidepressants or psychotherapies, omega-3 PUFAs might be a promising alternative and adjunctive treatment with a great safety profile,” Su said.
But because the effect size uncovered by the new analysis is small to moderate, it’s too early to recommend omega-3 PUFAs as the first-line treatment for anxiety, he added. “We need more well-conducted clinical trials to reach that kind of consensus.”
The findings were published online September 14 in JAMA Network Open.
Systematic Literature Search
Anxiety presents in a wide range of psychological and physical illnesses. Anxiolytics are used to treat a number of such illnesses, but since they’re the “most abused” of psychotropic drugs and are very addictive, omega-3 might provide a safe alternative, said Su.
PUFAs such as eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) are essential nutrients. Research has shown that they may have preventive and therapeutic effects in patients with psychiatric disorders such as anxiety and depression and can help relieve comorbid depression and anxiety in patients with physical illnesses.
The investigators carried out a systematic literature search for randomized or nonrandomized studies that assessed the effect of omega-3 PUFAs on anxiety symptoms in humans. The inclusion criteria were “as broad as possible to avoid missing any potentially eligible studies,” the authors write.
The analysis included 19 studies carried out in 11 countries; 16 of the studies had a placebo comparator. In the 19 studies, 1203 participants were treated with omega-3 PUFAs (mean age, 43.7 years; mean omega-3 PUFA dose, 1605.7 mg/day), and 1037 did not take omega-3 PUFA (mean age, 40.6 years).
In all studies, about 55% of the participants were women.
The studies used a number of different scales to evaluate anxiety symptoms, including the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale and the anxiety subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.
The psychiatric and physical health conditions of study participants varied widely. For example, in addition to a study that included patients with OCD and another that included those with personality disorders, other studies included only children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder or patients with Alzheimer’s disease or Tourette’s syndrome.
The primary outcome in the current analysis was change in anxiety symptoms in patients who received omega-3 PUFA supplements compared with those who did not receive such treatment. Dietary omega-3 was not considered.
Owing to the expected heterogeneity, researchers chose to conduct a random-effects rather than a fixed-effects meta-analysis. They point out that random-effects modeling is more stringent and incorporates an among-study variance in the calculations. They used Hedges g and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to combine the effect sizes of the studies.
Significantly Reduced Anxiety
The meta-analysis showed that anxiety was significantly reduced in patients who received omega-3 PUFAs compared with those who did not receive this treatment (Hedges g, 0.374; 95% CI, 0.081 – 0.666; P = .01).
The results remained significant after removal of any of the included studies, indicating that the significance was not based on any single study.
However, the researchers note the potential influence of two studies they considered outliers. One included women with premenstrual syndrome, and the other included college students with test anxiety. In these studies, anxiety symptoms were evaluated with a visual analogue scale and a test for anxiety severity.
Such tools “are seldom used in psychiatric research,” and proof that their sensitivity and specificity equals that of more frequently used scales is lacking, the authors write.
Su stressed that clinicians “should pay attention” to this observation when applying the results to clinical practice, particularly when considering the subgroups in these two studies.
There was no significant association between the Hedges g and mean age, proportion of women, mean omega-3 PUFA dose, EPA to DHA ratio, dropout rate in the omega-3 PUFA groups, or duration of omega-3 PUFA treatment.
The duration of such treatment in the studies ranged from 3 to 26 weeks. Although the analysis did not find significant effects regarding treatment duration, Su said he would recommend using omega-3 PUFAs “for at least 4 weeks when targeting anxiety.”
The anxiolytic effect of omega-3 PUFAs was significant in those who received a mean omega-3 PUFA dose of at least 2000 mg/day, but was not significant in those taking less.
Studies comparing omega-3 PUFAs with placebo revealed a significantly greater association with reduced anxiety in those who received the treatment (P = .03). So, too, did non-placebo-controlled trials (P = .001).
According to the authors, this “meant that the anxiolytic effect of omega-3 PUFAs is probably not entirely owing to the placebo effect.”
The association of omega-3 PUFA treatment with reduced anxiety symptoms was significantly stronger in subgroups with specific clinical diagnoses than in subgroups without such conditions (P = .03).
Effect on Depression
Six of the included studies also assessed at the effect of omega-3 PUFAs on depressive symptoms. This analysis showed a nearly null effect in healthy participants.
Other research, including that from Su and his team, has shown positive effects of PUFAs on depression. Su’s group was the first to publish a study demonstrating antidepressant effects of omega-3 PUFAs in pregnant women with major depression.
But, because of inconsistent findings, the beneficial properties of omega-3 PUFAs have “taken occasional hits,” and many people are now skeptical about taking supplements for depression, said Su.
For complex diseases such as psychiatric disorders, the effect sizes of single-drug or nondrug treatments are limited, he noted.
“Indeed, it is very easy to miss the small signals of therapeutic efficacy in placebo-controlled clinical trials and/or meta-analytic reviews without careful considerations on study designs,” Su added.
Regarding the possible mechanism of action, the authors note that brain membranes contain a high proportion of omega-3 PUFAs and their derivatives. Most studies suggest that a lack of omega-3 PUFAs in the brain may induce various behavioral and neuropsychiatric disorders, including anxiety-related behaviors, they write.
“Emerging evidence suggests that omega-3 PUFAs interfere with and possibly control several neurobiological processes, such as neurotransmitter systems, neuroplasticity, and inflammation, which is postulated to be the mechanism underlying anxiety and depression,” write the investigators.
Because the study has a number of limitations, including the heterogeneity of the study populations, the authors stress that the findings should be considered with caution.
“Encouraging” Findings
Asked to comment by Medscape Medical News, David Mischoulon, MD, PhD, Joyce R. Tedlow Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, and director of the Depression Clinical and Research Program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said this new meta-analysis is significant.
“It represents the first attempt to systematically evaluate the known scientific literature examining the potential impact of omega-3 fatty acids on symptoms of anxiety,” said Mischoulon, who was not involved with the research.
The findings that appear to support an antianxiety effect of the omega-3 fatty acids are “encouraging,” he added.
However, he stressed that the populations enrolled in the included studies did not, for the most part, receive a formal diagnosis of an anxiety disorder, such as generalized anxiety disorder or panic disorder, from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
“We need to be careful not to assume that the benefits observed here on individual symptoms of anxiety would necessarily translate into a high-impact treatment for anxiety disorders,” he said.
Mischoulon found it “especially interesting” that doses of at least 2000 mg/day of omega-3 seemed more effective than lower doses — especially because many studies of omega-3 in depression have suggested greater efficacy at doses of 1000 to 2000 mg/day compared with higher doses.
This may imply that the antianxiety effects of omega-3 may involve a different mechanism of action than its antidepressant effects, he noted.
The new meta-analysis “strongly supports” developing clinical trials to test the efficacy of omega-3 in anxiety disorders that are rigorously diagnosed using the DSM, he said.
Mischoulon also agreed with Su that because omega-3 is generally very safe and well tolerated and has general health benefits, “physicians may want to consider omega-3s in some of their patients, particularly those who may be prone to side effects from standard antidepressant or anxiolytic medications and who are not so severely ill that it would be dangerous to try a less proven remedy.”
The study was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science; the National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund and Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan; the National Health Research Institutes, Taiwan; and the China Medical University, Taiwan. Dr Su received grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology, the National Health Research Institutes, and the China Medical University during the conduct of the study. Dr Mischoulon has received research support from Nordic Naturals; has provided unpaid consulting for Pharmavite LLC and Gnosis USA, Inc; has received honoraria for speaking from the the Massachusetts General Hospital Psychiatry Academy, Blackmores, and PeerPoint Medical Education Institute, LLC; and has received royalties from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins for the book Natural Medications for Psychiatric Disorders: Considering the Alternatives.
JAMA Network Open. Published online September 14, 2018. Full text
More Americans Are Recording Their Doctor Visits
Have you ever left a doctor’s appointment with only a vague idea of what was said? You’re not alone: A new survey finds many Americans, and their doctors, are turning to recordings for help.
Researchers found that almost 30 percent of the doctors they surveyed had ever recorded a visit for a patient’s use. And about 19 percent of U.S. adults said they’d done so themselves — usually after asking the doctor’s permission.
Since smartphones are ubiquitous, it’s easier than ever to make such recordings, said study author Paul Barr, an assistant professor at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice.
But it hasn’t been clear how often patients are doing it — or whether many doctors are OK with it, said Barr.
Based on his team’s findings, most patients and doctors are at least interested in the idea.
“Clinicians are open to doing this,” Barr said. “I hope this helps raise awareness that this is an option for patients, if they’re interested.”
Research shows that people forget up to 80 percent of the information they hear during an average medical visit. But, Barr said, research also shows that recordings can help make up for fuzzy memories.
Dr. Colleen Silva specializes in treating breast cancer at the University of Texas Medical Branch, in Galveston. For nearly a decade, the center has offered cancer patients recorders to tape their visits if they wish.
A cancer diagnosis itself can be devastating, Silva pointed out. On top of that, patients may need to digest an avalanche of information on their treatment options.
“They can be so overwhelmed, they just shut down,” Silva said. That’s where recorded visits can make a big difference.
“Anecdotally, I can tell you that patients really appreciate having these. I’ve had many who say this helps them recall information,” Silva said.
Plus, she added, patients can share the recordings with family members who weren’t able to accompany them to the appointment.
Barr agreed that the ability to share information with family can be one of the big advantages of recording doctor visits.
The findings, published recently in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, are based on two surveys: One focused on 456 U.S. doctors in various specialties; the other included a nationally representative sample of 524 adults.
Just over 28 percent of doctors said they’d ever recorded a visit for a patient to use. It was most common among specialists who, like Silva, treat cancer: Almost half of oncologists said they’d recorded appointments.
The practice was also common among doctors who specialized in physical rehabilitation — with 42 percent saying they’d ever recorded visits.
As with cancer care, Barr said, that makes sense, because physical rehab may involve a lot of information to absorb. Studies have found, for example, that patients often prefer to have a video of their provider demonstrating exercises, versus getting written instructions only.
Of the respondents from the general public, almost one-fifth said they’d ever recorded a medical appointment. Most had done it with their doctor’s permission — but nearly 3 percent said they’d secretly recorded a visit.
Why they’d chosen the covert route is unclear.
But if some patients are worried about asking their doctor to record a visit, this survey offers some good news, according to Barr. While about 70 percent had never recorded an appointment, half of those doctors said they’d be willing.
“I think patients should absolutely feel they have the power to ask, if they want to,” Silva said.
A recording might not be needed if you’re visiting the doctor for an infection, Silva noted.
“But I could see this being useful any time a patient has a chronic medical condition that requires more complex, long-term management,” she said.
Barr agreed, and said that older adults — who often have multiple health conditions and difficulty remembering medical information — may find recordings especially helpful.
Some doctors in the survey did bring up one concern: The possibility that recorded discussions could end up being used against them in a lawsuit.
Silva said that in her center’s experience, that theoretical downside has not become a reality.
“So far, in nine-plus years, this has not come up as a problem,” she said.
More information
The U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has tips on talking to your doctor.
SOURCES: Paul Barr, Ph.D., assistant professor, Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, N.H.; Colleen Silva, M.D., professor, surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston; Sept. 12, 2018, Journal of Medical Internet Research, online
This week’s life sciences IPOs
Entasis Therapeutics Holdings Inc. (ETTX) will issue more than 4.4 million shares between $16 and $18 Wednesday on the Nasdaq. Entasis spun off from AstraZeneca plc (AZN) in 2015 to treat multidrug-resistant infections.
Arvinas Holding Company, LLC (NARVN) will issue nearly 6.7 million shares between $14 and $16 Thursday on the Nasdaq. Based in New England, the biotech company leverages proprietary protein technology in its oncological and neurological therapies.
RA Medical Systems, Inc. (RMED) will issue more than 3.3 million shares between $14 and $16 Thursday on the New York Stock Exchange. Since 2002, the medtech company has developed and commercialized laser tools to treat vascular and dermatological diseases.
Sutro Biopharma Inc (STRO) will issue 5 million shares between $14 and $16 Thursday on the Nasdaq. Based in San Francisco, Sutro develops and manufactures therapies in oncological and autoimmune indications.
Urovant Sciences Ltd. (UROV) will issue 10 million shares between $14 and $16 Thursday on the Nasdaq. The urology-focused biotech develops candidates for overactive bladder and irritable bowel syndrome.
Gritstone Oncology, Inc. (GRTS) will issue more than 6.07 million shares between $13 and $15 Friday on the Nasdaq. Headquartered in California, the oncology-focused biotech develops immunotherapy products for solid tumors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)