Dr Reddy's, Alvotech join hands to co-develop, manufacture & commercialise biosimilar of Merck's blockbuster drug Keytruda
HYDERABAD: Dr Reddy's Laboratories has entered into a collaboration and license agreement with Iceland-based biotech player Alvotech for the co-development, manufacturing and commercialiation of a biosimilar of Merck Sharp & Dohme's blockbuster drug Keytruda (pembrolizumab).
Keytruda, which is used for the treatment of various types of cancer, clocked sales of over US$29.5 billion in 2024.
The collaboration will combine Dr Reddy's and Alvotech's capabilities in biosimilars to speed up the development process and extend the global reach of the biosimilar candidate.
As per the agreement, the two companies will share the costs and responsibilities for jointly developing and manufacturing the biosimilar candidate and subject to certain exceptions, each company will have the right to commercialise the product globally, Dr Reddy's said on Thursday.
'The agreement demonstrates Alvotech's ability to leverage its dedicated R&D and manufacturing platform for biosimilars, accelerating the expansion of our pipeline by pursuing growing global markets. It further enables us to increase the availability of cost-effective, critical biologic medications to patients worldwide,' said Róbert Wessman, chairman & CEO, Alvotech.
Dr Reddy's CEO, Erez Israeli, said the pact demonstrates the company's ability to develop and manufacture high-quality and affordable treatment options for patients worldwide.
'Oncology has been a top focus therapy area for us, and this collaboration will further enhance our capabilities in oncology, as pembrolizumab currently represents one of the most critical therapies in immuno-oncology,' Israeli added.
Stay informed with the latest
business
news, updates on
bank holidays
and
public holidays
.
AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
13 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Can Trump's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac IPO plan slash mortgage rates? Bill Ackman says...
Synopsis Donald Trump is reportedly planning to IPO Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, potentially the largest IPO in history. Billionaire Investor Bill Ackman suggests merging the two mortgage giants to reduce mortgage rates and government oversight costs. Ackman believes privatization could yield substantial gains for the government, citing their improved capitalization and government backing. AP American hedge fund manager Bill Ackman took to X, formerly known as Twitter, and one way to reduce mortgage rates would be to merge government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac US President Donald Trump Saturday seemed to acknowledge reporting by The Wall Street Journal on Friday that he plans to IPO Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by the end of this year. The President and his economic advisers are planning a historic sale of stock in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-owned mortgage giants that help provide stability and affordability to America's home loan market. Reacting to the development, American hedge fund manager Bill Ackman took to X, formerly known as Twitter, and one way to reduce mortgage rates would be to merge government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He suggested the merger move would help reduce mortgage rates and achieve huge synergies both in their operations and in the trading price. ALSO READ: 'Ban Gay sex, end women's voting': Pete Hegseth sparks controversy for re-posting pastor's radical message Bill Ackman said Fannie and Freddie merger would also reduce the costs and risks of government way to reduce mortgage rates would be to merge Fannie and Freddie. A merger would enable them to achieve huge synergies both in their operations and in the trading price and spreads of their MBS, savings which could be passed along to consumers in the form of reduced mortgage rates, Ackman wrote in his post. "A merger would also reduce the cost and risks of government oversight as there would be only one institution that would require FHFA oversight. I suspect that this is @realDonaldTrump 's idea as implied by his post below. It's a really good one," his post read. US-government owned twin giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are tasked with expanding credit availability in the American market by securitising mortgages. Their shares surged over 20 per cent on Friday after the Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump administration may privatise the two institutions this year. ALSO READ: Powerball jackpot rises to $479 million: Who won lottery jackpot last night? Lotto results, drawing time US President Donald Trump has previously met the top leadership of US investment banks such as Citigroup, the Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase to explore potential public offerings of the twin mortgage giants, Reuters reported, citing an the plans have not been finalised yet, and Trump continues to weigh various options, according to a senior administration official. But the White House believes an initial public offering of up to 15% of the two companies' shares could raise $30 billion, which could make it the largest IPO in has been weighing an IPO for years now. During his first term, Trump attempted — but ultimately failed — to privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, removing them from government conservatorship. Now, in his second term, he has revived the push. In May, he wrote on Truth Social that he was 'giving very serious consideration to bringing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac public,' adding that he would consult with his Cabinet before making a decision 'in the near future.'Trump has argued for the monetisation of these two institutions, which were brought under US government control in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. In May this year, Trump floated the idea while emphasising that the government will maintain its implicit guarantees for the securities issued by the two institutions. ALSO READ: Last planet parade of 2025 happening today? How to watch the rare planetary alignment in the US Trump backer Bill Ackman, a long-time shareholder in the twin behemoths, has repeatedly called for their privatisation. Ackman, founder, Pershing Capital Management, told Forbes magazine last month that the US government is the preferred stockholder of the twins, and in a position to realise gains worth $300 billion. He argued that the two institutions were 'vastly better capitalised' today than for the past 60 two institutions are not banks, but tap creditworthy mortgage buyers and pack the mortgages in securities to be sold on the market, Ackman explained. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have guarantees worth $7 trillion coupled with enormous cash flows, apart from a government backing, underlining their ability to weather any future crisis, Ackman added.
Hindustan Times
43 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Headed to Alaska, hoping for a thaw
Before he began a second term as the US President, Donald Trump claimed he would be able to end the war between Russia and Ukraine in '24 hours' of taking office. The protracted negotiations that US officials have engaged in since then have brought out the harsh reality that Trump is not close to resolving a conflict that has dragged on for nearly three-and-a-half years, killed and wounded an estimated 1.4 million troops from both sides, and caused widespread devastation in the two countries. Trump's more ambivalent approach towards Russia initially raised hopes that he would be able to reach an understanding with President Vladimir Putin on ending the conflict, but recent moves by the US President — including his decision to slap a punitive 25% tariff on India for its Russian oil purchases — have signalled his growing frustration at lack of progress in efforts to stop the war. The planned summit between Trump and Putin on August 15 in Alaska, once part of the Russian empire, will be the first meeting between the two leaders since 2019. A Trump-Putin deal will have an impact on India since the stated reason behind Washington's threat to impose a punitive tariff is centred on New Delhi's trade with Moscow (REUTERS) Trump has hinted at a deal to end the war in Ukraine involving the swapping of territories, which is something Putin too has mooted to Washington in recent days. However, Ukraine and its European partners have apprehensions that such an approach will encourage Russian aggression, and they have backed a diplomatic resolution that protects European security interests. European States have emphasised that Ukraine must be part of all efforts to find a solution. The Alaska summit will be closely watched for all these reasons, and India is right to welcome it. One, a positive outcome will end the Ukraine war, which has caused immense damage to not just Russia and Ukraine, but also roiled Europe's economic and political situation and caused economic ripples in the Global South. Two, a Trump-Putin deal will have an impact on India since the stated reason behind Washington's threat to impose a punitive tariff is centred on New Delhi's trade with Moscow. Three, a US-Russia detente will allow Europe to recalibrate its priorities and also provide elbow room to India to pursue strategic autonomy and build ties with Moscow and Washington parallelly. That said, irrespective of the Alaska outcome, India should continue attempts not just strengthen its legacy ties with Russia but also normalise relations with Beijing. Strategic autonomy and multipolarity are in the interests of India's economic and global ambitions. It must pursue bilateral deals while being part of global alliances and partnerships that collectively speak for the Global South in trade, climate mitigation and security.
The Wire
2 hours ago
- The Wire
Tariff Storm, Muted Voices: Why India's Leaders Missed the Moment
And so here we stand: one of the largest economies in the world, staring down tariff levels that will bite into GDP growth, hammer several export sectors, and shake employment, all while playing catch‑up in our internal conversation. In the theatre of international trade, drama is never far away. Yet the speed, scale, and sequencing of the recent US‑India tariff crisis still managed to shock. It began quietly, with a warning. Then came a reprieve – stay of execution that many mistook for a permanent reprieve. The relief didn't last long. Within weeks, Washington moved to a 25% tariff on a large slice of Indian exports. The blow was heavy, but survivable. Then came the big one: a brutal 50% tariff, with the tantalising cruelty of a new twist in the script—whispers of 'additional, targeted sanctions' still to come. Taken together, this was not just an import‑export problem; it was a strategic strike at Indian industry's confidence and the livelihoods of millions. For every container, truck, or shipping manifest involved in US‑bound trade, the sequence of announcements was like a slow, methodical tightening of a vice. Yet while the economic costs mounted in market forecasts and factory floor gossip, there was one thing missing from public life: sustained, transparent communication from New Delhi. The fact that these escalations played out over months should have been a gift of time to prepare the public, industry, and policymakers for a coordinated response. Instead, it became a masterclass in how to squander it. The government's approach could best be described as 'episodic monologue.' We learned of developments mainly through sparse press releases or curt statements from senior ministers, each packed with nationalistic resolve but light on practical detail. A seasoned observer could detect an almost reflexive rejection of the Singapore‑style playbook. There, leaders treated the tariff crisis (smaller in magnitude, but large for them) as a shared national challenge from Day One. The prime minister was visible, vocal, and insistent on walking citizens through every decision tree – what might happen, what it would mean, and how each possible outcome would be addressed. Singaporean ministries held Q&A sessions, industry was brought into joint planning committees, and scenario planning wasn't whispered in smoky back rooms; it was laid out for all to see. Transparency was used to rally resilience. India, in contrast, offered resilience as a rhetorical flourish rather than an operational blueprint. The moment called for scenario communication: If tariffs stay here, here's what happens; if they climb, here's our plan; if sanctions come, here's how we shield the most vulnerable. But the public got little beyond the default vocabulary of sovereignty and self‑reliance—and even those were delivered sparingly. Ironically, this old‑world style is not incompetence per se, but rather a deeply rooted instinct in Indian political culture. Power, as exercised in this space, equates disclosure with weakness. It is the politics of the classic Indian male archetype in communication: firm, self‑assured, sparing with admissions, resistant to vulnerability. In this mould, the leader is supposed to know, to decide, and to inform selectively; the public's role is to nod in approval, not to ask for the working behind the answer. Representative image of Bengaluru during the COVID-19 lockdown of 2020. Photo: Nicolas Mirguet/Flickr CC BY-NC 2.0 DEED This pattern has played out before. During COVID‑19, arguably the largest domestic crisis since Independence, leaders across the political spectrum defaulted to prescriptive announcements. Whether lockdowns or vaccination schedules, communication often took the form of a national address – which was authoritative, yes, but also unidirectional. Citizens got instructions, not inclusion. Information was sanitised for political effect, uncertainty was glossed over, and worst‑case scenarios were rarely articulated in the open. That same proclivity – crafting a singular, controlled narrative and feeding it in measured, occasional doses—has resurfaced during the recent tariff escalation. And then there's the Operation Sindoor precedent. Those who followed it closely will recall the swift retreat of civilian political faces from public briefings as the crisis deepened. The television cameras turned instead to uniformed officers and senior bureaucrats, whose delivery was clinical, precise—and politically risk‑free. This outsourcing of voice during a crisis may be expedient, but it is also telling. When things get complicated, elected leadership in India often steps back from speaking for itself, opting to let the technocrats take the stage. In Operation Sindoor, as now, that choice projected competence of a sort – but it also signalled political detachment at precisely the moment when citizens expect their leaders to be closest to the front line. The trouble with such distance is that it leaves space for rumour to roam. Trade bodies filled the vacuum with their own projections – some grounded, others alarmist. Exporters swapped fragments of corridor talk about possible retaliatory measures. On the WhatsApp factory floor, speculation became a substitute for strategy. In that climate, the government's occasional pronouncements felt less like guidance and more like interruptions, momentarily breaking into a conversation that was happening elsewhere. Crisis communication experts will tell you the same, whether you're talking about currency collapses, pandemics, or, yes, tariff wars: a leadership that speaks early, often, and not only controls the information environment – it earns the credibility to manage change when the facts turn ugly. Honesty about uncertainty does not erode authority; it creates the trust you need to navigate an unpredictable path. Singapore seemed to understand this instinctively. Its leaders did not promise certainty; they promised competence in whichever scenario emerged. This subtle shift – communicating readiness rather than rehearsed confidence – turns the public from a passive consumer of news into an active participant in resilience. India's political discipline By contrast, India's delayed and guarded messaging has had tangible costs. Weeks that could have been spent helping industries diversify markets or adjust pricing strategies were instead spent in a kind of strategic limbo. Exporters could not make timely investment decisions. Small manufacturers reliant on US orders could not weigh the costs of shifting supply chains. Workers could only guess whether layoffs were imminent. In policy terms, this is not just a communications lapse – it is a planning failure caused in part by that lapse. At a global level, India's handling of this growing trade spat also shapes how partners and rivals perceive the country's political discipline. Tariff wars are not just technical disputes; they are diplomatic negotiations conducted in a theatre where both message and action matter. A well‑calibrated communication strategy can reassure potential allies, signal resolve to adversaries, and frame the crisis in ways that rally domestic energy. In this round, India's preference for opacity denied it those easy wins. To be fair, no leader enjoys spelling out worst‑case scenarios. Doing so invites criticism, emboldens the opposition, and risks alarming markets. But the alternative, glossing over the downside until it arrives, is worse. When the 50% tariff hit, the public shock was greater precisely because the government had not laid the groundwork for the possibility. Had leaders said in month one, 'Yes, there's a high risk of escalation to 50% and even targeted sanctions, here's how we could respond,' the headline would have startled—but the assurance of foresight would have cushioned the blow. This is, at heart, the choice between cultivating an audience and cultivating a public. An audience is there to watch the performance, to be reassured or entertained. The public is there to participate, to adapt, to help set the course. In moments like this, the difference matters profoundly. Singapore chose the public. India chose the audience. And so here we stand: one of the largest economies in the world, staring down tariff levels that will bite into GDP growth, hammer several export sectors, and shake employment, all while playing catch‑up in our internal conversation. The irony is sharp. India has the talent – communications professionals, policy analysts, business leaders—capable of crafting the open, scenario‑driven dialogue that could have cushioned this shock. What it needs is the political instinct to use them in time. For now, the US tariffs are a fact, not a forecast. The following steps – whether further escalation or a road back to the negotiating table – will come sooner than we think. If India is to manage them well, it must abandon the reflex of selective silence and embrace the discomfort of sharing the whole picture. Less theatre, more trust. Less monologue, more conversation. Less stagecraft, more statecraft. Dr Sunoor Verma is honorary president of The Himalayan Dialogues and a specialist in global leadership and crisis communication. He writes in a personal capacity and his views are independent of his institutional affiliations. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
