Search This Blog

Wednesday, September 26, 2018

Henry Schein’s Upcoming Animal Health Spin-Off Could Unlock 30% To 50% Upside


Henry Schien will be spinning-off its animal health business and merging it with Vets First Choice (VFC), a private company. We believe the transaction will unlock significant shareholder value.
HSIC disclosed in April, 5,100 vets were using VFC’s tech-enabled pharmacy platform, but our recent big data scrape indicates it is on pace for 9,000 vets by year-end (+76%).
We also conducted a survey of 100 vets using VFC and find strong user satisfaction, and meaningful revenue uplift opportunities benefiting both vets and HSIC alike.
In the coming weeks, we expect HSIC to provide more information on the spin, and eventually host an Analyst Day offering longer-term guidance. We expect the spin to open up a broader shareholder base, and attract significant analyst coverage.
HSIC/VFC will be the fastest growing play in the hot animal space. Our sum-of-the-parts base case yields $106/share assuming multiples in line with peers, and +50% should it receive a premium multiple.

JPMorgan Resumes Eli Lilly: ‘One Of The Best-Positioned Names In Our Group’


Shares of big-cap pharma names have been on a solid uptrend since the second-quarter earnings season in late July.
Against this backdrop, Eli Lilly And Co LLY 0.6%‘s prospects prompted a JPMorgan analyst to turn bullish on stock Wednesday.

The Analyst

Analyst Christ Schott resumed coverage on Eli Lilly with an Overweight and year-end 2019 price target of $117.

The Thesis

Eli Lilly is “fundamentally one of the best-positioned names in our group,” Schott said in a Wednesday note. (See his track record here.)
The bull thesis is predicated on the healthy growth of core products including Trulicity, Taltz and Jardiance and the next wave of late-stage pipeline assets such as CGRP, tanezumab and GIP/GLP-1, the analyst said.
JPMorgan projects that Eli Lilly will generate above-average topline growth of about 5-percent CAGR; significant margin expansion from 27 percent in 2018 to mid-30-percent by 2024; and health EPS growth of about 10 percent CAGR.
Schott named the following as near-term catalysts for the stock:
  • The readout from the Trulicity REWIND CV study due early in the early fourth quarter.
  • Clinical data from GIP/GLP-1 program.
  • Phase 3 data from tanezumab due in late 2018 or early 2019.
The above catalysts could support upside to Street estimates, the analyst said.
Despite Lilly’s strong run year-to-date, JPMorgan continues to see an attractive setup the stock.

Biotech Investors: Mark Your Calendar For These October PDUFA Dates


September had several clinical trial results announcements and a few FDA approvals triggering moves in the space. New molecular moiety, or NME, approvals totalled a mere three in September, taking the total NME approvals for 2018 to 37 compared to 46 in 2017.
Here are the PDUFA catalysts for the upcoming month.
PDUFA dates are deadlines for the FDA to review new drugs. The FDA is normally given 10 months to review new drugs. If a drug is selected for priority review, the FDA is allotted 6 months to review the drug. These time frames begin on the date that an NDA is accepted by the FDA as complete.

Will FDA Go With Panel Decision And Greenlight Paratek’s Broad Spectrum Antibiotic?

  • Company: Paratek Pharmaceuticals Inc PRTK
  • Type of Application: Two separate NDAs
  • Candidate: Omadacycline
  • Indication: Antibiotic to treat Community-acquired pneumonia, or CAB, and acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, or ABSSSI
  • Date: Early October
The FDA accepted the NDAs for priority review in April. FDA’s Antimicrobials Drug Advisory Committee, which discussed the NDA Aug. 8, voted in favor of approving both intravenous and oral formulations of the candidate for both CAB and ABSSI.
“A modernized tetracycline, omadacycline is specifically designed to overcome tetracycline resistance and exhibits activity across a broad spectrum of bacteria, including Gram-positive, Gram-negative, anaerobes, atypical bacteria, and other drug-resistant strains,” the company said.

Roche Seeks Approval For Expanded Indication For Blood Disorder Drug

  • Company: Roche Holdings AG Basel ADR RHHBY 0.03% unit Genentech
  • Type of Application: sBLA
  • Candidate: Hemlibra
  • Indication: Treating adults and children with haemophilia A without factor VIII inhibitors
  • Date: Oct. 4
Roche announced FDA acceptance of the application and according of Priority Review status June 5. The application was submitted based on data from Phase III HAVEN 3 study. Hemlibra was earlier approved by the FDA in Nov. 2017 to prevent or reduce the frequency of bleeding episodes in adults and children with haemophilia A with factor VIII inhibitors.

Bausch’s Psoriasis Treatment Awaits FDA Vetting

  • Company: Bausch Health Companies Inc BHC 1.09%
  • Type of Application: NDA
  • Candidate: IDP-122 lotion, chemically halobetasol propionate 0.01%
  • Indication: Plaque psoriasis
  • Date: Oct. 5
Bausch’s Ortho Dermatologics unit announced FDA acceptance of the NDA Feb. 14. The company said, if approved, the candidate will be the first high-potency topical steroid treatment for plaque psoriasis with dosing for as long as eight weeks.

Will FDA Give Its Nod For Ionis-Akcea’s Rare Disease Drug After The Three-Month Extension?

  • Company: Ionis Pharmaceuticals Inc IONS 0.21%PTC Therapeutics, Inc. PTCT 0.74% and Akcea Therapeutics Inc AKCA 8.58%
  • Type of Application: NDA
  • Candidate: Inotersen (IONIS-TTRRx)
  • Indication: Treatment of patients with hereditary TTR amyloidosis (hATTR)
  • Date: Oct. 6
The FDA accepted Jan. 8 the NDA with Priority Review status, with an original PDUFA date of July 6. A three-month extension was announced by Ionis’s affiliate Akcea in its first-quarter earnings release. Inotersen is a RNA-targeted therapeutic for patients with hATTR amyloidosis and has already been approved in the EU.

Merck Awaits FDA Clearance For Two sBLAs

  • Company: Merck & Co., Inc. MRK 0.44%
  • Type of Application: sBLAs
  • Candidate: Gardasil 9 vaccine
  • Indication: An expanded age indication for GARDASIL 9 for use in women and men aged 27 to 45 for the prevention of certain cancers and diseases caused by the nine HPV types
  • Date: Oct. 6
And the other:
  • Candidate: Keytruda + carboplatin-paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel
  • Indication: First-line treatment for metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), regardless of PD-L1 expression
  • Date: Oct. 30

Can Regeneron-Sanofi Breath Easy With Dupixent Approval For Asthma

  • Company: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc REGN 0.38% and Sanofi SA SNY 1.26%
  • Type of Application: sBLA
  • Candidate: Dupixent
  • Indication: Adults and adolescents aged 12 years or older with moderate-to-severe asthma.
  • Date: Oct. 20
Dupixent is a monoclonal antibody approved already for the treatment of adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis whose condition is not properly controlled with topical therapies. Both companies have another tryst with the FDA on Oct. 28.
  • Type of Application: BLA
  • Candidate: Cemiplimab
  • Indication: Metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, or CSCC, or patients with locally advanced CSCC who are not candidates for surgery
  • Date: Oct. 28

ADMA Seeks FDA Nod For Relaunch of Immunodeficiency Treatment

  • Company: ADMA Biologics Inc ADMA 3.58%
  • Type of Application: Prior Approval Supplement, or PAS to amend the FDA-approved BLA
  • Candidate: Bivigam
  • Indication: Treatment of primary humoral immunodeficiency
  • Date: Oct. 25

Jazz Knocks FDA Altar For Pediatric Sleep Disorder Drug

  • Company: Jazz Pharmaceuticals PLC JAZZ 0.59%
  • Type of Application: sNDA
  • Candidate: Xyrem oral solution
  • Indication: Cataplexy and excessive daytime sleepiness in pediatric narcolepsy patients
  • Date: Oct. 27

TherapeuticsMD’s Seeks Approval For Drug to Treat Perimenopausal Symptoms

  • Company: TherapeuticsMD Inc TXMD 1.76%
  • Type of Application: NDA
  • Candidate: TX-001HR (bio-identical hormone therapy combination of estradiol and progesterone in a single, oral softgel)
  • Indication: Moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms due to menopause
  • Date: Oct. 28

Paratek-Allergan’s Acne Treatment Candidate Awaits Clearance

  • Company: Paratek Pharma and Allergan plc AGN 1.54%
  • Type of Application: NDA
  • Candidate: Sarecycline
  • Indication: Moderate to severe acne vulgaris in patients 9 years of age and older
  • Date: October (estimated based on the 10-month standard review period from the NDA acceptance date of Dec. 20)

Adcom Meeting Schedule

The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will meet Oct. 10 to discuss Celltrion’s BLA for CT-P10, a proposed biosimilar to Genentech’s Rituxan, for treating CD20-positive, B-cell Non–Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.
The Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee of the FDA will discuss Oct. 11 Trevena Inc TRVN 4.72%‘s NDA for oliceridine 1 milligram/milliliter injection for the management of moderate-to-severe acute pain in adult patients for whom an intravenous opioid is warranted. The committee will evaluate safety, efficacy as well as benefit-risk considerations.
The Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee will also review AcelRx Pharmaceuticals Inc ACRX 2.41%‘s NDA for sufentanil sublingual tablets for treating moderate-to-severe acute pain severe enough to require an opioid analgesic and for which alternative treatments are inadequate. The committee will look at risk-benefit considerations and also recommend approvability of the candidate. The Adcom meeting is scheduled for Oct. 12. The NDA was handed down a CRL in Oct. 2017 following which a resubmission has been made, with the new PDUFA date set for Nov. 3, 2018.
The FDA has convened a joint meeting of the Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee Oct. 17 to discuss Sloan Pharma’s sNDA for Zelnorm for the treatment of women with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation who don’t have a history of cardiovascular ischemic disease.
The Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee will discuss Oct. 18 Shire PLC SHPG 1.39%unit Shire Development, LLC’s NDA for prucalopride tablets for oral administration to treat chronic idiopathic constipation in adults.

Liquidia Technologies Added to Russell 2000®, 3000® and Microcap® Indexes


 Liquidia Technologies, Inc. (LQDA) (“Liquidia”), a late-stage clinical biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of human therapeutics using its proprietary PRINT® technology to transform the lives of patients, today announced that it has been added to the Russell 2000®, Russell 3000® and Russell Microcap® Indexes, effective after market close on September 21, 2018, as part of Russell’s quarterly addition of companies with recent initial public offerings.
The Russell 2000 Index measures the performance of the small-cap segment of the U.S. equity market and is a subset of the Russell 3000. Membership in the Russell 2000 Index includes automatic inclusion in the appropriate growth and value indexes, such the Russell Microcap Index. The Russell Microcap Index represents small-cap and micro-cap stocks.
“Inclusion in the Russell 2000, Russell 3000 and Russell Microcap Indexes offers the opportunity to broaden Liquidia’s presence within the investment community,” said Neal Fowler, Chief Executive Officer of Liquidia. “We are pleased to be added to these indexes and believe that we are well-positioned following our successful initial public offering in July.”
Russell indexes are widely used by investment managers and institutional investors for index funds and as benchmarks for active investment strategies. Approximately $9 trillion in assets are benchmarked against Russell’s U.S. indexes. Russell indexes are part of FTSE Russell, a leading global index provider.

Courts Push Medicaid to Cover Costly Hepatitis C Treatments


A series of recent court rulings and settlements, including one last week in Indiana, have found that states cannot withhold potentially life-saving but expensive medications from Medicaid beneficiaries and prison inmates who have chronic hepatitis C.
Hepatitis C kills far more Americans than any other infectious disease. But when new antiviral drugs that for the first time promised a cure for hepatitis C hit the market in 2014, states blanched at their eye-popping prices and took steps to sharply limit the availability of those treatments for Medicaid beneficiaries and inmates. According to one recent survey, only 3 percent of inmates in state penitentiaries with hepatitis C receive the cure.The antiviral drugs have since become cheaper, but judicial decisions and settlements have consistently found that states cannot deny treatment because of cost in any case.
In the latest ruling, U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson, chief judge of the U.S. Southern District of Indiana, said that withholding or delaying treatment from hepatitis C-infected inmates was unconstitutional, amounting to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The U.S. Constitution requires state penitentiaries to provide health care to prisoners.
The ruling follows a similar decision in Florida last year and settlements reached this year in Massachusetts and Colorado that require correctional systems in those states to provide treatment to virtually all infected inmates. Colorado has set aside $41 million over two years to treat all inmates with the virus. Similar lawsuits are pending in Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Missouri and Tennessee.
Likewise, states have been on the losing end of lawsuits involving Medicaid beneficiaries who have been denied hepatitis C treatments in Colorado, Michigan, Missouri and Washington, forcing changes in policies to make the cure more broadly available. And settlements have been reached elsewhere, including in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Florida, according to the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation at Harvard University. States run Medicaid agencies, which provide health care to the poor, and split the costs with the federal government.
While providing the treatments will cost states tens of millions of dollars, health policy experts insist the spending will provide an overall economic and public health benefit. Attacking hepatitis C in prisoners and in Medicaid patients, they say, will go a long way toward eradicating the disease while also saving money by preventing patients with untreated hepatitis C from progressing to liver failure and cancer.
“The most important thing to remember about cost-effectiveness is that something that is really expensive can still be cost-effective if it is really, really effective,” said Mark Roberts, chairman of the University of Pittsburgh department of health policy and management who has written studies about the new hepatitis C medications. “And these drugs are very, very effective.”

A Cure Arrives

The new antivirals, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration late in 2013 and first sold the following year, represented a giant leap from previous treatments. The treatment period for the old drugs lasted as long as 48 weeks, entailed severe side effects, and delivered a cure rate lower than 50 percent.
By contrast, the new antivirals usually require 12-week treatment periods, carry virtually no side effects and boast an effective rate above 95 percent. For the estimated 3.5 million Americans with hepatitis C, the new drugs promise a pain-free cure. Hepatitis C is particularly prevalent among baby boomers, who were susceptible to the disease at a time when infection controls were less prevalent, and among drug users who share contaminated needles.
When the drugs first hit the market, a single course of treatment cost as much as $84,000.
“States were terrified by their cost exposure,” said Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. “And they had no idea how many people would show up on Day One demanding the cure. Would it be 75 percent? Twenty-five percent? One percent? They had no idea what their exposure was.”
The prevalence of hepatitis C is thought to be higher among Medicaid beneficiaries than the general population, Salo said, with estimates ranging from 700,000 to 1 million Medicaid patients infected. And the rate is higher still in prisons because of illicit drug use and do-it-yourself tattooing common in penitentiaries. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 1 in 3 prisoners in U.S. jails and prisons has hepatitis C.
In response to the high prices, state Medicaid agencies and prisons decided to essentially ration the new drugs.
They relied on blood tests to determine the severity of a patient’s disease, measuring the level of fibrosis, or liver scarring. Patients were given scores, from F0 (no fibrosis) to F4 (cirrhosis, or late-stage scarring of the liver).
In the corrections and Medicaid systems, only patients with higher scores were eligible for treatment. Many states also denied treatment to active drug users, and in Medicaid programs, they limited the numbers of doctors who could prescribe the new antivirals.
Nationwide, at least 144,000 inmates at state prisons with hepatitis C (97 percent) aren’t getting the cure, according to a new survey by Siraphob “Randy” Thanthong-Knight at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism.
In Vermont, according to VTDigger, one state lawmaker called it “appalling” when he learned at a legislative hearing last week that in 2017, of 258 state prisoners with hepatitis C, only one had received the cure.

Stigma

Those restrictions drew a firestorm of criticism, not only from advocates for Medicaid beneficiaries and prisoners, but from human rights and medical organizations, such as the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the World Health Organization. Many argued that policymakers stigmatized patients with hepatitis C in a way they would never consider with other diseases.
“If there were a cure for breast cancer or Alzheimer’s or diabetes, people would be storming the White House to make sure those medicines were available to everyone, you can be sure of that,” said Robert Greenwald, a professor at Harvard Law School and the faculty director of the school’s Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation. “But we’ve responded completely differently with the cure for hepatitis C because of the stigma associated with that disease.”
Greenwald and others insist that treating prisoners with hepatitis C is an indispensable step toward eradicating the disease in the whole population.
(Stateline contacted communications offices for a dozen state Medicaid offices that restrict hepatitis C antivirals to those patients with fibrosis scores of F3 or F4. None responded.)
In 2015, the Obama administration urged state Medicaid agencies to lift restrictions on the drugs. By 2017, at least 17 states lifted restrictions based on severity. Many others retained the restrictions but loosened them to make the drugs available to beneficiaries with less severe liver damage.
The movement in prisons has been slower, nudged along mainly by the lawsuits. “They have been slow to respond,” said Tina Broder, interim executive director of the National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable, a coalition working to eradicate hepatitis B and C.
Kellie Wasko, deputy executive director at the Colorado Department of Corrections, said the settlement the state reached with the American Civil Liberties Union last month only formalized what the state had decided to do on its own, which was to treat all the estimated 2,200 Colorado prisoners with hepatitis C.
“As a health care professional, I do believe it is right to treat everybody,” said Wasko, who is a nurse.
She acknowledged that the drugs’ lower costs made the decision easier for the prison administrators and the legislators who appropriated the $41 million for treatment.
Originally, she said, the price for a single course of treatment was $56,000. Because of contract requirements, she said she couldn’t reveal the price Colorado pays now, but “it is significantly less.”
Other experts say that with discounts, Medicaid and corrections systems can now pay as little as $10,000 for a course of treatment.
“Even at those prices,” Harvard’s Greenwald said, “states are waiting for us to litigate before they’ll remove these restrictions. And the only explanation for that is the stigma.”

Medicare eases readmission penalties for safety-net hospitals


Penalties will total $566 million for all hospitals. But many that serve a large share of low-income patients will lose less money than they did in previous years.


On orders from Congress, Medicare is easing up on its annual readmission penalties on hundreds of hospitals serving the most low-income residents, records released last week show.
Since 2012, Medicare has punished hospitals for having too many patients end up back in their care within a month. The government estimates the hospital industry will lose $566 million in the latest round of penalties that will stretch over the next 12 months. The penalties are a signature part of the Affordable Care Act’s effort to encourage better care.
But starting next month, lawmakers mandated that Medicare take into account a long-standing complaint from safety-net hospitals. They have argued that their patients are more likely to suffer complications after leaving the hospital through no fault of the institutions, but rather because they cannot afford medications or don’t have regular doctors to monitor their recoveries. The Medicare sanctions have been especially painful for this class of hospitals, which often struggle to stay afloat because so many of their patients carry low-paying insurance or none at all.
In a major change to its evaluation, the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) this year ceased judging each hospital against all others. Instead, it assigned hospitals to five peer groups of facilities with similar proportions of low-income patients. Medicare then compared each hospital’s readmission rates from July 2014 through June 2017 against the readmission rates of its peer group during those three years to determine if they warranted a penalty and, if so, how much it should be.

The broader issue is whether medical providers that serve the poor can be fairly judged against those that care for the affluent. This has been a continuing topic of contention as the government seeks to accurately measure health care quality. It is particularly a concern in efforts to consider patient outcomes in setting pay rates for doctors, nursing homes, hospitals and other providers.
Overall, Medicare will dock payments to 2,599 hospitals — more than half in the nation— throughout fiscal year 2019, which begins Oct. 1, a Kaiser Health News analysis of the records found. The harshest penalty is 3 percent lower reimbursements for every Medicare patient discharged in fiscal year 2019. The number of hospitals and the average penalty — 0.7 percent of each payment — are almost the same as last year.
But the new method shifted the burden of those punishments. Penalties against safety-net hospitals will drop by a fourth on average from last year, the analysis found.
“It’s pretty clear they were really penalizing those institutions more than they needed to,” said Dr. Atul Grover, executive vice president of the Association of American Medical Colleges. “It’s definitely a step in the right direction.”
Safety-net hospitals that will see their penalties cut by half or more include many urban institutions, such as Sutter Health’s Alta Bates Summit Medical Center in Oakland, Calif.; Providence Hospital in Washington, D.C.; and Hurley Medical Center in Flint, Mich. Sixty-five safety-net hospitals — including Franklin Medical Center in Winnsboro, La., Astria Toppenish Hospital in Toppenish, Wash., and Emanuel Medical Center in Swainsboro, Ga. — that had been penalized last year escaped punishment entirely this year.
Conversely, the average penalty for the hospitals with the fewest low-income patients will rise from last year, the analysis found.
Before the program began, roughly 1 in 5 Medicare beneficiaries were readmitted within a month. Hospitals were paid the same amount regardless of how their patients fared after being discharged. In fact, a readmission was financially advantageous as hospitals would be paid for the second hospital stay, even if it might have been avoidable.
Since the sanctions began, Medicare has evaluated each year rates for readmitted patients who had originally been treated for heart failure, heart attacks and pneumonia. And it has reduced its payments to more than half of hospitals based on those rates. The evaluations have since expanded to cover chronic lung disease, hip and knee replacements and coronary artery bypass graft surgeries.
Medicare counts patients who returned to a hospital within 30 days, even if it is a different hospital than the one that originally treated them. The penalty is applied to the first hospital.
Medicare exempts hospitals with too few cases, those serving veterans, children and psychiatric patients, and critical-access hospitals, which are the only hospitals within reach of some patients. In addition, Maryland hospitals are excluded because Congress lets that state set its own rules on how it distributes Medicare money.
In its revised method this year, Medicare distinguished hospitals that serve a high proportion of low-income patients by looking at how many of the hospital’s Medicare patients were also eligible for Medicaid, the state-federal program for the poor. American Hospital Association officials say that while they considered this an improvement, it isn’t a perfect reflection of poor patients. For one thing, they say, hospitals in states with more restrictive Medicaid coverage do not appear through this formula to have as challenging patient populations as do hospitals in states with higher Medicaid eligibility.
Akin Demehin, the association’s director of quality policy, said CMS might consider linking its records to Census records that show income and education level of patients.
“It might give you a more precise adjuster,” he said.
The hospital industry remains critical of the overall program, saying that stripping hospitals of revenue because of poor performance only makes it harder for them to care for patients.
Congress’ Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in June concluded that the penalties from previous years successfully pressured hospitals to reduce the numbers of returning patients — and helped save Medicare about $2 billion a year.
In its analysis of the approach’s effectiveness, Congress’ advisory commission rejected some of the hospital industries’ complaints about Medicare’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program: that hospitals may have tried to get around the penalties by keeping patients under “observation status” and that discouraging rehospitalizations may have led to extra deaths.
The commission found that between 2010 and 2016 readmission rates fell by 3.6 percentage points for heart attacks, 3 percentage points for heart failure and 2.3 percentage points for pneumonia. At the same time, readmissions caused by conditions that do not factor into the penalties fell on average 1.4 percentage points, indicating hospitals were focusing on lowering unnecessary readmissions that could hurt them financially.
The commission wrote: “We conclude that the [penalties] contributed to a significant decline in readmission rates without causing a material increase in ED [emergency department] visits, a material increase in observation stays, or a net adverse effect on mortality rates.”
This fall, Medicare will attack the readmissions from another angle by issuing penalties on skilled nursing facilities that send recently discharged residents back to the hospital too frequently.

Antibody combo controls HIV for months


Antiretroviral therapy (ART) is the gold standard for HIV treatment. But patients need to take their medicines every day or risk a rapid virus rebound. That makes the drugs hard to adhere to in a lifelong battle. Scientists at Rockefeller University now suggest that combining HIV antibodies could keep the virus in check for months, potentially relieving patients of their daily pill-taking routine.
In a small phase 1b trial, the researchers combined two broadly neutralizing antibodies (bNAbs), dubbed 3BNC117 and 10-1074. These antibodies were found in “elite controllers,” or people whose bodies successfully fight off HIV without the help of drugs. They work by targeting proteins on HIV’s surface so that the body’s immune system can seek out and destroy the virus.
Participants whose viral load had already been controlled stopped taking their antiretroviral drugs and received three infusions of the bNAbs three weeks apart.


Among nine individuals who had viruses that were sensitive to both antibodies, the treatment suppressed their viral load for a median of 21 weeks—or 15 weeks after their last injection. Two of them maintained virologic control at the 30-week follow-up. The team reported the results in the journal Nature.

In a separate study, seven patients who hadn’t received ART and had viruses still circulating in their bloodstream were treated with bNAbs and maintained significant viral reduction for up to three months, according to results published in Nature Medicine.
The new findings from the Rockefeller researchers were encouraging, because previous studies using a single bNAb only reduced the levels of virus for a short time. By contrast, 3BNC117 and 10-1074 attack HIV from two different angles, so administering them together might reduce the likelihood of resistance, the researchers believe.
The two antibodies offer other advantages, too. “The expectation is that these new variants will have three- to four-fold longer half-lives,” said Rockefeller’s Michel Nussenzweig, a co-leader in both bNAb studies, in a statement. “So we may be able to give the antibodies once or twice a year.”
Moreover, Nussenzweig said that bNAb therapy could help the body produce HIV-fighting antibodies on its own, much like anti-cancer antibody therapies that boost the natural immune system.

Other efforts are underway in the HIV community to develop safe therapies that require less frequent dosing. A partnership between GlaxoSmithKline’s HIV unit ViiV Healthcare and Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen has demonstrated in a phase 3 trial that a combination of cabotegravir and rilpivirine could be a monthly ART, and the two companies are also testing the regimen as a bi-monthly injectable.
Of course, the once-and-for-all approach would be to clear “reservoirs” where HIV hides from ARTs and bide its time to bounce back. Scientists at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill recently showed that a T-cell therapy was well tolerated in a small group of patients, teeing up further studies that combine it with latency-reversing drugs.
According to the Rockefeller researchers, bNAbs also hold the potential to prevent HIV. Gilead Sciences’ Truvada is approved for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) but requires daily administration. A team from the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative and the Scripps Research Institute recently identified potent bnAbs that could block most HIV strains by targeting a “site of vulnerability.”
Promising as they are, bNAb treatments do have their limitations. HIV virus has many variants and is prone to mutation especially when it’s not properly suppressed. In some patients, antibodies are unable target all of them. In the Nature study, for example, two participants who experienced viral rebound at 12 weeks were found to host HIV variants that were resistant to at least one bNAb.
“These two antibodies are not going to work for everyone,” said the studies’ co-leader, Marina Caskey, in a statement. “But if we start to combine this therapy with other antibodies or with antiretroviral drugs, it could be effective in more people—and that’s something we hope to look at in future studies.”