Loan Frenzy Masks Rising Losses on Defaults: Credit Weekly

 

• Liability management is reducing recovery rates on loans
• Demand has sent spreads to their tighest level in two years

Companies sold a record volume of leveraged loans last month, taking advantage of the cash chasing credit. A glance at recovery rates for defaults, however, highlights a growing risk in this debt.

For newly issued first-lien debt in the US and Canada in the first quarter, investors could expect to get back less than 35% of their investment when loans sour, compared with 72% from 2018 through 2022, according to a presentation this month by S&P Global Ratings.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-01/loan-frenzy-masks-rising-losses-on-defaults-credit-weekly

India says Delhi's record 52.9 Celsius temperature last week was wrong by 3 C

 A record temperature registered this week for the capital New Delhi of 52.9 degree Celsius (127.22 Fahrenheit) was too high by 3 C, the Indian government said on Saturday, blaming a weather sensor error.

The Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) had investigated Wednesday's reading by the weather station at Mungeshpur, a densely packed corner of Delhi, "and found a 3°C sensor error", Earth Sciences Minister Kiren Rijiju said

"Corrective measures are now in place," the minister said, sharing the conclusion of a draft report about the all-time high reading on social media platform X. He did not give a corrected figure for Wednesday's temperature.

The IMD said in a statement that the maximum temperature reported by the Mungeshpur weather station "is not correct due to malfunctioning of the sensor".

However the city's record for heat still appears to have been broken.

Two weather stations in the capital reported temperatures of 49 C (120.2 F) and 49.1 C (120.38 F) for Wednesday. The IMD said these two stations had been checked and it did not report any sensor errors.

The highest temperature previously recorded in New Delhi was 48.4 C (119.12 F)in May 1998, the draft IMD report said.

Severe heat has been scorching parts of India for days. At least 33 people, including election officials on duty, died of suspected heatstroke in the states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar in the north, and Odisha in the east on Friday.

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/finance/news/india-says-delhis-record-52-112729095.html

Pro-Palestinian Protesters To "Surround The White House" Next Weekend Over Rafah Strike

 In the wake of a deadly Israeli strike at a tent camp in Rafah last week which produced horrific viral footage of charred corpses, days after the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to immediately halt military operations, and miles beyond Biden's 'red line' (using US bombs, no less), pro-Palestine, anti-war activists are taking to the White House one week from today.

Photo: Craig Birchfield

ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), an anti-war group founded three days after the September 11, 2001 attacks, has launched an event to "Get on a bus to DC" and "Surround the White House for Palestine."

"June 8 marks 8 months of US-Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people, and marks the 54th anniversary of the occupation of Gaza. A month ago, Biden said that the invasion of Rafah was a red line. But now, the invasion of Rafah has continued for weeks, has expanded to the entire Gaza Strip, Biden's red line is nowhere to be seen," ANSWER wrote on its website. 

The group continued, "Biden can't draw the line, but we can. On June 8, we will come together from across the country and surround the White House." 

"On June 8th, tens of thousands will show Biden that the people are his red line — we refuse to allow him to continue the genocide against the people of Gaza! Instead of a red line, Biden gave a green light to Netanyahu’s invasion of Rafah by agreeing to send more U.S. bombs and missiles. While the government that speaks in our name arms the genocidal Israeli regime to the teeth, the people want freedom for Palestine," said Brian Becker, National Director of ANSWER.

Meanwhile, progressive outlet People's Dispatch notes that a diverse range of 'anti-imperialist groups' are supporting the mass demonstration.

These include the Palestinian Youth Movement, National Students for Justice in Palestine, U.S. Palestinian Community Network, the People’s Forum, Al-Awda: The Palestine Right to Return Coalition, Palestinian Feminist Collective, the ANSWER Coalition, U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights, Arab Resource and Organizing Center, International Jewish Anti Zionist Network, Writers Against the War on Gaza, Healthcare Workers for Palestine, and Palestine Popular University.

"How many more homes have to be destroyed, how many children need to be killed, until this government takes definitive action to stop Israel’s war crimes. We are tired of hearing that Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken are ‘concerned about the civilian death toll’. If they were really concerned about what Israel was doing, they would suspend all aid and tell Israel to accept one of the many ceasefire deals that is on the table. This genocide needs to end, and Biden has the power to do it," said Celine Quissiny of the Palestinian Youth Movement.

The event was teased during closing statements from the People's Conference for Palestine, where Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) slammed Biden as an "enabler," threatening that "we aren't going to forget in November, are we?"

The issue continues to stoke the political divide in America - with mainstream Republicans and Democrats drooling over the thought of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu giving a speech at the US Capitol (at the invitation of Speaker Mike Johnson, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries), while progressive Democrats and anti-interventionist libertarians overlap on this horseshoe issue.

And here's why...

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/pro-palestine-protesters-prepare-surround-white-house

Bragg’s thrill kill in Manhattan could prove short-lived on appeal

 The conviction of former President Donald Trump in Manhattan of 34 felonies produced citywide celebrations. This thrill-kill environment extended to the media, where former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman told MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace that it was “majestic day” and “a day to celebrate.” When I left the courthouse after watching the verdict come in, I was floored by the celebrations outside by both the public and some of the media.

The celebrants would be wise to think twice before mounting this trophy kill on the political wall. The Trump trial is a target-rich environment for an appeal, with multiple layers of reversible error, in my view.

I am less convinced by suggestions that the case could be challenged on the inability of Trump receiving a fair trial in a district that voted roughly 90 percent against him. The problem was not the jury, but the prosecutors and the judge.

Some of the most compelling problems can be divided into four groups.

The Judge

Acting Supreme Court justice Juan Merchan was handpicked for this case rather than randomly selected. This is only the latest in a litany of Trump cases where Merchan has meted out tough rulings against Trump and his organization. With any other defendant, there would likely be outrage over his selection. Merchan donated to President Biden. Even though the state bar cleared that violation based on the small size of the contribution, it later stressed that no such contributions were appropriate for a judge. We learned later that Merchan has contributed to a group to stop the GOP and Trump. Merchan’s daughter is also a Democratic organizer who has helped raise millions against Trump and the GOP and for the Democrats.

To his credit, CNN legal analyst Elie Honig has previously said that this case was legally dubious, uniquely targeted Trump and could not succeed outside of an anti-Trump district.  On the judge, he recently challenged critics on the fairness of assigning a Biden donor who has earmarked donations for “resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.” He asked “Would folks have been just fine with the judge staying on the case if he had donated a couple bucks to “Re-elect Donald Trump, MAGA forever!”? “Absolutely not.”

What is equally disturbing is the failure of Merchan to protect the rights of the defendant and what even critics admit were distinctly pro-prosecution rulings in the trial. It is not just the appearance of a conflict with Judge Merchan but a record of highly biased decisions. In watching Merchan in the courtroom, I was shocked by his rulings as at times incomprehensible and conflicted.

The Charges

A leading threshold issue will be the decision to allow Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to effectively try Trump for violations of federal law. The Justice Department declined any criminal charges against Trump under federal election law over the alleged “hush money” payments. The Federal Election Commission likewise found no basis for a civil fine. With no federal prosecution, Bragg decided to use an unprecedented criminal theory not only to zap a dead misdemeanor into life (after the expiration of the statute of limitation) but to allow him to try violations of not only federal election law but also federal taxation violations. In other words, the Justice Department would not prosecute federal violations, so Bragg effectively did it in state court.

Even when closing arguments were given, analysts on various networks admitted that they were unclear about what Bragg was alleging. The indictment claimed a violation under New York’s election law 17-152 that the falsification of business records were committed to further another crime as an unlawful means to influence the election. However, in a maddeningly circular theory, that other crime could be the falsification of business records. It could also be violations of federal election and taxation laws, which Trump was never charged with, let alone convicted of.

The Evidence

Judge Merchan allowed a torrent of immaterial and prejudicial evidence to be introduced into the trial by the prosecution. That included testimony from porn actress Stormy Daniels that went into details about having sex with Trump. She included a clear suggestion that Trump raped her. After this utterly disgraceful testimony, Merchan expressed regret but actually blamed the defense counsel, despite their prior objections to the testimony. He had previously chastised counsel for making continued objections, but now he criticized them for not continuing to make objections.

Merchan was equally conflicted in his other orders. For example, he allowed the prosecutors to introduce the plea agreement of Michael Cohen to federal election violations as well as the non-prosecution agreement of David Pecker on such violations. However, it was allowed only for the purposes of credibility and context. He issued an instruction that the jury could not consider the plea or the agreement to establish or impute the guilt of Trump.

The prosecutors then proceeded to expressly state that it was “a fact” that federal election violations occurred in this case and that Trump ordered those violations. They also solicited such statements from witnesses like Cohen. Merchan overruled the objections that the prosecutors were eviscerating his instruction. Merchan also barred the use of a legal expert, former FEC Chair Brad Smith, who was prepared to testify that such payments cannot be viewed as federal election violations and would not affect the election even if they were considered contributions, since they would not even have had to be reported until after the election.

Merchan is likely to be upheld in denying the expert, since the court retains the authority to state what the law is to the jury. The problem is that Merchan failed to do so. Worse still, he allowed the jury to hear the opposite in the repeated false claim that these payments were campaign contributions.

The Instructions

Even with all of the reversible errors, some of us held out hope that there might be a hung jury. That hope was largely smashed by Merchan in his instructions to the jury. The court largely used standard instructions in a case that was anything but standard. However, the instruction also allowed for doubt as to what the jury would ultimately find. When the verdict came in, we were still unsure what Trump was convicted of.

Merchan allowed the jury to find that the secondary offense was any of the three vaguely defined options. Even on the jury form, they did not have to specify which of the crimes were found. Under Merchan’s instruction, the jury could have split 4-4-4 on what occurred in the case. They could have seen a conspiracy to conceal a federal election violation, falsification of business records or taxation violations. We will never know. Worse yet, Trump will never know.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the requirement of unanimity in criminal convictions is sacrosanct in our system. While there was unanimity that the business records were falsified to hide or further a second crime, there was no express finding of what that crime may have been. In some ways, Trump may have been fortunate by Merchan’s cavalier approach. Given that the jury convicted Trump across the board, they might have found all of three secondary crimes. The verdict form never asked for such specificity.

These are just a few of the appellate issues. There are other challenges, including but not limited to due process violations on the lack of specificity in the indictment, vagueness of the underlying state law and the lack of evidentiary foundation for key defenses like “the legitimate press function.” They are the reason why many of us view this case is likely to be reversed in either the state or federal systems. None of that is likely to dampen the thrill in this kill in Manhattan.

But if Biden wins the election before this conviction is overturned, history’s judgment will be deafening.

Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4697118-braggs-thrill-kill-in-manhattan-could-prove-short-lived-on-appeal/

Maine Cops Warn BMV Issuing Driver Licenses to Individuals with Bogus Social Security Numbers

 A police department in southern Maine is seeing an “uptick” in the number of driver’s licenses issued by the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) to individuals using the social security number “999-99-9999”.

“We’ve seen an uptick in [BMV] using 999-99-9999 for social security numbers,” wrote Darcie L. Valido, the Assistant Director of Operations for Sanford Regional Communications, in a May 23 email to various police departments in southern Maine.

In the email, which was obtained via a Freedom of Access Act request, and a phone interview, Valido said she sent the email because the bogus social security number can cause issues with the in-house police database.

That “heads up” email was received by law enforcement agencies throughout York County.

Valido was not aware of how or why the proxy number was linked to several bonafide Maine driver’s licenses.

Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D), who is responsible for overseeing the BMV, did not respond to a request for comment about the “uptick” in proxy social security numbers that the Sanford PD has experienced.

Deputy Secretary of State Catherine Curtis, the director BMV, did not respond to a request for comment about the phony social security numbers.

It’s unclear exactly how individuals without valid social security numbers are obtaining Maine driver’s licenses — or whether they are being registered to vote.

In order to obtain a driver’s license in Maine, individuals are required by law to prove that they are a Maine resident, present in the U.S. lawfully, and provide two forms of identification.

“If your social security number is not on file with the Secretary of State, you must provide your social security number,” the BMV website states.

One potential explanation is that the Sanford PD just happens to be encountering an uptick in nonimmigrant visa-holders who have obtained driver’s licenses by providing an I-94 document, also known as the Arrival/Departure Record.

Jessica Vaughan, the director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, said that the licenses linked to 999-99-9999 social security numbers could possibly have been provided to such non-citizen visa-holders admitted to the U.S. legally.

“They are lawfully admitted and would not need a SSN in most cases,” Vaughan said.

However, the lack of an official explanation from Bellows or the BMV has some Republicans concerned Maine is aiding illegal immigration and potentially allowing non-citizens to vote in Maine’s elections.

Maine Republican Party Executive Director Jason Savage told the Maine Wire that Attorney General Aaron Frey (D) should launch an investigation into whether illegal aliens are obtaining Maine driver’s licenses and registering to vote.

“This revelation is deeply disturbing. It suggests Maine’s Secretary of State is aiding people who are not legally present to obtain documents, including ID and driver’s licenses,” Savage said in a statement.

“With a wide open southern border and waves of illegal immigrants coming to Maine, this is a recipe for disaster,” said Savage.

“Maine’s Attorney General must investigate this issue immediately and provide full transparency,” he said. “Shenna Bellows needs to be replaced with a Secretary of State that respects the rule of law and U.S. Constitution by the next Maine Legislature.”

Although Maine law currently prohibits the BMV from giving driver’s licenses or IDs to illegal aliens, several other states — including Massachusetts, New York, and California — will provide licenses regardless of immigration status.

In January, Maine’s Speaker of the House, far left Democrat Rep. Rachel Talbot Ross, introduced a bill (LD 1138) that would have removed the legal requirement that Maine driver’s licenses only be given to those present in the U.S. legally.

Later in the session, however, the bill was pulled at Talbot Ross’s request.

“The allegations raised here give me serious concerns about what is happening behind the scenes and in the dark at the Secretary of State’s office,” said Rep. Billy Bob Faulkingham (R-Winter Harbor), the top Republican in the House of Representatives.

“I’m alarmed that once again Democrat-appointed Secretary of State Shenna Bellows is seemingly creating new laws out of thin air,” said Faulkingham.

Although Democrats and progressive groups have long maintained that non-citizens are not voting in U.S. elections, a study conducted by the nonprofit Just Facts estimated that as many as 2-5 million non-citizens were registered to vote as of 2022.

https://www.themainewire.com/2024/05/maine-cops-warn-bmv-issuing-drivers-licenses-to-individuals-with-bogus-social-security-numbers/

After Grilling an NIH Scientist Over COVID Emails, Congress Turns to Fauci

 Former NIH official Anthony Fauci, MD, has faced many hostile questions from members of Congress, but when he appears before a House panel on Monday, he'll have something new to answer for: a trove of incendiary emails

opens in a new tab or window written by one of his closest advisers.

In the emails, David Morens, MD, a career federal scientist now on administrative leave, described deleting messages and using a personal email account to evade disclosure of correspondence under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

"I learned from our foia lady here how to make emails disappear after i am foia'd but before the search starts, so i think we are all safe," Morens wrote in a Feb. 24, 2021 email. "Plus i deleted most of those earlier emails after sending them to gmail."

The pressure is on as Fauci himself prepares to appear June 3 before a House subcommittee exploring the origins of COVID-19. The NIH, a $49 billion agency that is the foremost source of funding in the world for biomedical research, finds itself under unusual bipartisan scrutiny. The subcommittee has demanded more outside oversight of NIH and its 50,000 grants and raised the idea of term limits for officials like Fauci, who led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) from 1984 to 2022.

Lawmakers are likely to put Fauci on the spot about Morens's emails at a time when Republicans are questioning NIH's credibility and integrity. Even Democrats have cautioned the agency's leaders.

"When people don't trust scientists, they don't trust the science," Rep. Deborah Ross (D-N.C.) told Morens.

The subcommittee has yet to turn up evidence implicating the NIH or U.S. scientists in the pandemic's beginnings in Wuhan, China. Nor has its work shed light on the origin of the virus.

But in a May 28 letter to NIH Director Monica Bertagnolli, MDopens in a new tab or window, the subcommittee's chairman, Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), said the evidence "suggests a conspiracy at the highest levels of NIH and NIAID to avoid public transparency regarding the COVID-19 pandemic."

Rep. Jill Tokuda (D-Hawaii) said the evidence shows no such conspiracy. She predicted the bipartisan criticism of Morens will give way to "a clash of intentions" at the hearing as Republicans try to pin COVID on Fauci.

"For them, I think this is their moment to, again, bring a lot of these baseless, false allegations to the front," Tokuda said.

On May 29, Wenstrup asked Fauci to turn over personal emails ahead of his testimony.

Here are things to know as the subcommittee gears up for Fauci's appearance.

What Is the Subcommittee Looking For?

The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic is supposed to be investigating how the pandemic started and the federal government's response. That includes such hot-button issues as vaccination policies and school closures.

A central question is whether the COVID virus leaped from animals to humans at a market in Wuhan, China, or spread from a leak at the nearby Wuhan Institute of Virology. The Wuhan lab received funding from an NIH grant recipient called EcoHealth Alliance.

The congressional probe is in some ways an extension of the nation's political, cultural, and scientific battles arising from the pandemic.

The Republican-led subcommittee has been examining NIH's performance and that of Fauci, who advised both former President Donald Trump and President Joe Biden, becoming the face of many of the government's most polarizing pandemic policies.

The panel called for the government to cut off EcoHealth's fundingopens in a new tab or window, a process HHS recently initiatedopens in a new tab or window.

EcoHealth's president, Peter Daszak, PhD, was Morens's friend and the recipient of many of the emails under scrutiny. A wildlife biologist credited with helping to develop remdesivir, the first COVID antiviral drug, Daszak said he and his organization did nothing wrong.

"We were so accurate in our predictions that a bat coronavirus would emerge from China and cause a pandemic, that when it did, we're dragged in front of the crowd with their pitchforks and blamed for it," Daszak said in an interview.

What's at Stake for NIH?

The subcommittee is challenging NIH's credibility. The agency performs and funds a wide variety of medical and scientific research, work that is often the foundation of new medicines and other treatments, and has long enjoyed bipartisan support from Congress. The agency is home to the "Cancer Moonshotopens in a new tab or window," a Biden priority.

As head of NIAID and a presidential adviser, Fauci helped guide the public during the pandemic on measures to avoid infection, such as mask-wearing and maintaining physical distance.

But at a May 22 hearing, Wenstrup said Fauci's NIAID "was, unfortunately, less pristine than so many, including the media, would have had us all believe."

In his letter to Bertagnolli, Wenstrup said there was evidence that a former chief of staff of Fauci's might have used intentional misspellings -- such as a variant of "EcoHealth" -- to prevent emails from being captured in keyword searches by FOIA officials.

Wenstrup's office did not respond to questions or an interview request.

An aide to the top Democrat on the subcommittee, Rep. Raul Ruiz, MD (D-Calif.), said he was unavailable for an interview.

Why Were Morens's Emails Alarming?

The emails show a pattern of trying to shield communications from public disclosure.

"We are all smart enough to know to never have smoking guns, and if we did we wouldn't put them in emails, and if we found them we'd delete them," Morens wrote on June 16, 2020.

"The best way to avoid FOIA hassles is to delete all emails when you learn a subject is getting sensitive," he wrote on June 28, 2021.

Some of Morens's emails included sexual or sexist remarks, including one from December 2020: "Beverage is always good, and best delivered by a blonde nymphomaniac." In another emailopens in a new tab or window, discussing how former CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, got her job, he remarked, "Well, she does wear a skirt."

Morens apologized at the May 22 hearing and called some of what he wrote "misogynistic."

"Some of the emails I've seen that you all have provided look pretty incriminating," he testified.

Asked if he ever sent information related to COVID to Fauci's personal email, he said he didn't remember but might have.

Morens said some of his comments were "snarky jokes" intended to cheer up his friend Daszak, the EcoHealth president, who was receiving death threats over media coverage of his organization's relationship with the Wuhan lab.

Morens testified that he didn't knowingly delete official records.

Ross, the North Carolina representative, said the emails "inflict serious damage on public trust for the entire scientific enterprise." She said the dangers can be seen in eroding public confidence in vaccines, contributing to recent outbreaks of measles.

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said Morens showed disdain for FOIA. The subcommittee's investigation has been an unfounded effort to pin the blame for the pandemic on NIH and NIAID, and Morens's emails have helped blur the issues, she said.

Do the Emails Reveal the Origins of COVID?

No, as Democrats have emphasized.

In a way, Morens's correspondence undercuts allegations that people at the top of NIAID covered up a lab leak in Wuhan.

None of Morens's emails describe any effort to suppress evidence of a lab leak and, in an email sent from a private account, he ridiculed the idea, calling it "false to the point of being crazy." But the subcommittee's senior Democrat, Ruiz, criticized Morens for dismissing the lab leak theory.

"Unless and until we see specific evidence on the origins" of the virus that causes COVID, "the scientific process requires that we examine all possible hypotheses with objectivity," Ruiz said.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/features/110421

ASCO24: Takeda and Pfizer’s Hodgkin Lymphoma Combo Improves Survival

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)’s annual meeting kicks off Friday in Chicago, with more than 5,000 abstracts highlighting investigational therapies for various malignancies. Analysts have expressed particular excitement for a new bispecific antibody, ADCs and a BCMA-targeted CAR-T cell therapy.

Stay tuned to BioSpace as we keep you updated on all of the biggest data and news from the conference.

Updated: June 1, 3:30 PM EST/2:30 PM CST

Takeda and Pfizer’s Hodgkin Lymphoma Combo Improves Survival

On Saturday, Pfizer and Takeda posted positive results for a combination of the antibody-drug conjugate Adcetris in Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

According to Pfizer and Takeda, which has the commercialization rights to Adcetris outside of the U.S. and Canada, the Phase III HD21 study evaluated the ADC in combination with several other cancer treatments such as etoposide, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, dacarbazine and dexamethasone (BrECADD). The combination was pitted against the standard of care, a cocktail of seven cancer drugs, in newly diagnosed Stage IIb/III/IV classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients. The three-year analysis found that the experimental combination had met the co-primary endpoints, displaying improved safety and “non-inferior” progression-free survival (PFS).

After 48 months, the ADC combination has shown a “superior efficacy” to the standard of care, netting 94.3% in PFS versus 90.9% with a p-value of p<0.035. Treatment-related morbidity was also lower than the standard of care at 42% versus 59% (p<0.001). The study also found that the Adcetris combo had an improved risk-to-benefit profile compared to the current standard.

“We initiated the HD21 trial with the hope of improving outcomes currently being achieved by a standard of care, as many patients with newly diagnosed disease often experience a high treatment burden,” Peter Borchmann of the University Hospital of Cologne, Germany, and trial chairman of the HD21 study said in a statement. “The presented analysis, in which the ADCETRIS regimen demonstrates superior progression-free survival, as well as a tolerable safety profile, reveals the meaningful potential this ADCETRIS + ECADD regimen has to offer these patients.”

Pfizer has also presented encouraging results for its ALK- inhibitor Lorbrena at ASCO.

---

BMS’s Krazati Reaches Primary Endpoint in NSCLC

Bristol Myers Squibb announced on Saturday at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting that the small-molecule KRAS^G12C inhibitor Krazati had reached its primary endpoint in a Phase III trial in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

According to BMS, the Phase III Krystal-12 trial pitted Krazati against chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic KRAS^G12C-mutated NSCLC who have already received docetaxel. The results showed that the treatment induced a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) at a median follow-up of 9.4 months. The median PFS was 5.5 months for Krazati, compared to 3.8 in the chemotherapy arm. The overall response rate (ORR) was also higher in Krazati versus docetaxel, with a p-value of p<0.0001. The median duration of response was 8.31 months in Krazati patients versus 5.36 months in the chemo arm.

Krazati also had an intracranial response among patients with central nervous system metastases and displayed a response rate that was more than double that of docetaxel. BMS said that the study is ongoing and will assess the secondary endpoint of overall survival.

“These confirmatory results further support KRAZATI as an efficacious, targeted treatment option for these patients,” Abderrahim Oukessou, vice president and global program lead for KRAZATI at BMS, said in a statement. “We look forward to further sharing these results while also continuing to evaluate KRAZATI in other advanced KRAS^G12C-mutated solid tumors.”

Krazati came into BMS’s possession late last year when it acquired Mirati Therapeutics for $4.8 billion.

https://www.biospace.com/article/asco-2024/