Reperio Health raises $14M for national expansion of its in-home health services
Travis Rush, co-founder and CEO of Reperio Health. (Reperio Photo)
Reperio Health, a Portland, Ore.-based startup providing in-home health screenings, raised $14 million in funding, Endpoints News reports.
The new cash allows Reperio to expand its recently launched telehealth services beyond Oregon and Washington to patients nationally.
The company, which launched in 2020, provides kits that include tests for blood pressure and heart rate; a scale and tape measure for determining body mass index; and devices for blood tests that generate instant data for cholesterol, triglycerides, lipids and glucose levels.
An app walks users through the tests and the results are uploaded directly from the devices via a Bluetooth connection.
With the addition of telehealth services, the users of the home testing kits can discuss their results with a healthcare provider. The devices are returned to Reperio and sterilized for reuse.
Reperio's customers include employers, health plans, medical providers and individuals.
CEO Travis Rush and Chief Technology Officer Matt Wallington co-founded Reperio after working together at Sightbox, a company that Rush launched and that which offered a subscription plan for eye exams and contact lens fittings and supplies. Johnson & Johnson acquired the startup in 2017 for an undisclosed sum.
Reperio has raised a total of $32 milllion, Endpoints reported, and Caduceus Capital Partners led the new round.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Patents and economies of scale support Pfizer's wide moat
Pfizer's innovative business should grow faster after it divests its off-patent division Upjohn in 2020 to create Viatris and Mylan. With fewer older medications and fewer patent losses, Pfizer is well-positioned for consistent growth, excluding the erratic sales of Covid-19-related products. The company is less vulnerable to any one patent loss thanks to its wide range of medications. Because of its more complex manufacturing process and more affordable prices, Pfizer's stronger position in the vaccine marketwhich includes the pneumococcal vaccine Prevnarmakes it more resilient to generic competition. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 6 Warning Signs with PFE. With a 30% to 80% reduction, Trump's executive order would establish a "most favored nation" policy in which the US would pay the same amount for prescription medications as the nation with the lowest price. It is anticipated that this policy, which was previously blocked by courts, will reduce the US's annual drug spending of over $400 billion, saving taxpayers over a seven-year period. Given that drug prices in the United States are high when compared to other countries, Pfizer's U.S. revenue could be drastically impacted by the 30% to 80% price cut, especially for high-margin medications. International reference pricing policies have long been opposed by the pharmaceutical industry, which claims they could hinder innovation and limit access to new companies anticipate that the order will target Medicare and may have an impact on medications not covered by Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. President Trump has said that significant tariffs on pharmaceutical products will probably be announced soon. He has also put a 90-day hold on broader tariffs for the majority of his trading partners to give them time to negotiate. Despite being mostly exempt from tariffs, the biopharma industry is preparing for a possible pharma-specific announcement that might affect global manufacturing strategies. Products made in Europe and imported into the US may be subject to the rumored 25% tariff, necessitating the construction of new facilities that will take years to complete. Due to home country manufacturing, tax benefits, lower production costs, and exposure to currency fluctuations, businesses based in the US and Europe are heavily exposed to European manufacturing. Because drug spending is not cyclical, the direct effect of tariffs on earnings is probably going to be minimal, and the indirect effect of a possible recession should also be minimal. With the exception of small-scale US capacity expansions, biopharma is unlikely to completely reevaluate its manufacturing footprint if pharmaceutical tariffs are implemented but are lifted after 2026 as a result of political pressure from the midterm elections. Leadership in Vaccines Pfizer stands out with its dominant position in vaccines, most notably its highly successful COVID-19 vaccine developed in partnership with BioNTech. This vaccine not only generated significant revenue but also established Pfizer as a leader in mRNA technology, a platform with potential applications in oncology, rare diseases, and beyond. Johnson & Johnson (J&J): J&J also developed a COVID-19 vaccine, but it was less widely adopted due to lower efficacy rates and safety concerns, giving Pfizer a clear advantage in this high-impact area. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK): GSK has a strong vaccine portfolio (e.g., shingles and meningitis vaccines) but did not independently develop a COVID-19 vaccine, relying on partnerships like Sanofi, which delayed its entry and diminished its competitive stance. Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS): BMS has no significant presence in vaccines, focusing instead on oncology and immunology, making Pfizer's vaccine leadership a unique strength. R&D Capabilities and Pipeline Focus Pfizer's R&D efforts are concentrated on high-growth therapeutic areas such as oncology, vaccines, and rare diseases. Its ability to leverage mRNA technology and rapidly develop innovative therapies underscores its R&D prowess. J&J: J&J's R&D spans pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and consumer health. While this diversification provides stability, it may dilute J&J's focus on cutting-edge pharmaceutical innovation compared to Pfizer's targeted approach. GSK: GSK excels in respiratory diseases and HIV research, but its pipeline is less broad and lacks the same level of innovation in emerging technologies like mRNA that Pfizer is advancing. BMS: BMS has a strong oncology pipeline, particularly in immuno-oncology, but its narrower focus limits its competitiveness in other high-growth areas where Pfizer thrives, such as vaccines and rare diseases. Global Reach and Market Presence Pfizer operates in over 150 countries, giving it a vast global footprint that enhances its ability to distribute products and capture market share across both developed and emerging markets. J&J: J&J also has a global presence, but its focus is split across pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and consumer health, potentially reducing its pharmaceutical market penetration compared to Pfizer. GSK: GSK is strong in Europe and emerging markets but less dominant in the U.S., the world's largest pharmaceutical market, where Pfizer has a significant advantage. BMS: BMS focuses heavily on the U.S. and Europe, with less presence in emerging markets, limiting its global scale compared to Pfizer. Brand Reputation and Trust The success of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine has significantly boosted its brand recognition and trust among consumers, healthcare providers, and governments, reinforcing its market position. J&J: J&J enjoys a strong reputation in consumer health, but its pharmaceutical division lacks the same level of visibility and trust as Pfizer's, particularly after COVID-19 vaccine challenges. GSK: GSK is well-regarded in respiratory and HIV treatments but does not have the broad public recognition that Pfizer has achieved. BMS: BMS is respected in oncology but lacks the widespread brand prominence that Pfizer has cultivated. Innovation in Emerging Technologies Pfizer's investment in mRNA technology positions it as a pioneer in pharmaceutical innovation, with potential applications in vaccines, cancer treatments, and more, giving it a forward-looking edge. J&J: J&J innovates in medical devices and consumer health but trails Pfizer in adopting next-generation pharmaceutical technologies like mRNA. GSK: GSK focuses on innovation in respiratory and HIV treatments but has not made significant advances in mRNA or other emerging platforms. BMS: BMS drives innovation in immuno-oncology but lacks Pfizer's breadth and leadership in cutting-edge technologies. Pfizer's competitive edge over Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, and Bristol Myers Squibb lies in its unmatched leadership in vaccines, particularly through mRNA technology, combined with a robust R&D pipeline, extensive global reach, substantial financial resources, strong brand reputation, and a focus on innovation. While J&J benefits from diversification, GSK from efficiency, and BMS from oncology expertise, none rival Pfizer's comprehensive strengths across these critical areas, ensuring its dominance in the pharmaceutical landscape. Pfizer's broad moat is supported by patents, economies of scale, and a strong distribution network. Strong pricing power derived from Pfizer's patent-protected medications allows the company to produce returns on investment that exceed its cost of capital. The company can develop the next generation of drugs before generic competition appears thanks to the patents. Furthermore, even though Pfizer has a wide range of products, there is some product concentration, as Prevnar accounts for slightly more than 10% of total sales (not including sales of the COVID-19 vaccine).However, because of the vaccine's complicated manufacturing process and comparatively low cost, we don't anticipate typical generic competition. Ibrance and Eliquis each account for nearly 10% of sales. On the other hand, we anticipate that new products will eventually lessen the competition from generic versions of important medications. In order to lessen the pressure on margins from lost sales of high-margin drugs, Pfizer's operating structure permits cost-cutting after patent losses. All things considered, Pfizer's well-established product line generates the massive cash flows required to cover the typical $800 million in development expenses for each new medication. For smaller pharmaceutical companies without Pfizer's resources, the company's robust distribution network positions it as a solid partner. On April 15, President Donald Trump issued an executive order outlining possible policy changes intended to reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals in the United States. The biopharma industry is looking forward to these changes because they have the potential to either help or hurt innovation. In the worst situation, international price benchmarks have the potential to drastically cut US drug prices and lessen financial incentives for international drug development. On the plus side, eliminating the "pill penalty" that only grants small molecule medications nine years of Medicare negotiation protection may promote innovation across all treatment modalities. Trump's executive order may have a positive or negative impact on the industry, but it has no effect on valuations or uncertainty ratings. The protection period is not specified in Trump's request that US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. collaborate with Congress to address the pill penalty, which is contingent upon Congressional action. Since innovation and a favorable mergers and acquisitions climate support long-term pricing power and offset possible short-term tariff pressure, rising tax rates, and approval delays, the biopharma industry seems undervalued. Due to liver damage in a clinical trial, Pfizer has announced the discontinuation of danuglipron, an oral small molecule GLP-1 agonist. In the anticipated $200 billion global GLP-1 market by 2031, the company sought to provide a potential second-to-market oral small molecule GLP-1 agonist, behind Lilly's orforglipron. Clinical trial failures and declining demand for Pfizer's COVID vaccine and antiviral medication have hurt the company's growth. Because of its diverse pipeline and portfolio, Pfizer is expected to have a wide-moat case, protecting it from the effects of individual program failures, especially those involving high-risk programs like danuglipron. Other medication candidates might benefit from Pfizer's objective of turning danuglipron into a once-daily business could use its $15 billion acquisition budget to fund the development of more sophisticated medication candidates. Efforts in Genetic Engineering: A solid growth driver for Pfizer is the strong pipeline of innovative treatment options, especially in oncology and immunology, which take the leap with cutting-edge scientific technology. To be more specific, Pfizer's resource allocation to immuno-oncology is evident, developing of checkpoint inhibitors (e.g., PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors) and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies. For instance, this method of treatment mitigates the immune system's ability to detect and destroy the specified cancer cells by varying the immune system response or, in some cases, by using specially modified T-cells that can identify the particular antigens on tumors that are solely expressed in those particular tumors, which are in question. This is the area of advancement where Pfizer has outdone the rest as they are perfecting monoclonal antibody formatsdesigning them in a way that they will bind more tightly and specifically to targets using protein engineeringand they are also testing out bispecific antibodies that trigger switches at two targets, therefore enhancing healing by more than one method. The pipeline is further supported by vast R&D investment in gene therapy and precision medicine, which utilize adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector platforms for gene delivery and next-generation sequencing for actionable mutation identification respectively. These endeavors are aimed at enhancing the overall patient health and market potential of the drugs by changing the treatment convention from testing a wide spectrum to one that is genotype-driven. Clinical trials are usually designed in a way to be fast-tracked so that they can move quickly to the next stage of development. By focusing on such advanced technologies, Pfizer is embarking on capturing a large section of the market with high-growth therapeutic branches, thus gaining revenue through innovation guided by complex disease biology. Revenue Growth: The launching of these high-value treatments is expected to increase revenue as well as drive down costs for Pfizer. Most of the drugs that are released in the onco-immunology field possess a technical edge and therapeutic effectiveness, therefore, these new treatements often demand high price. These drugs are capable of pumping up profits significantly once they clear regulatory hurdles and find their way onto the market. take the example of just-above successful immuno-oncology drug sales, which always have brisk selling and marvelous sales. In addition, Pfizer can speed-up the whole clinical process with something like adaptive trial designs, this process will be quicker and thus benefits are obtained faster from the new products. Impact on profitability The weight on profitability depends on the ratio of costs and returns. What is actually known is that lamas like the checkpoint inhibitors and CAR-T treatments that are so good require a lot of investment in R&D. But there is an inherent advantage for these drugs thanks to their patent protection that comes with market exclusivity, which in turn, allows Pfizer to keep its pricing strategy stick and generate very high profits. Success in the selling of the product along the lines of this new dimension along with the efficiency of producing more could prove to be the road to better profitability. However, there are barriers such as competition from other drug companies plus the worry of the price cuts from payers that can erode this success. So if Pfizer is able to eliminate the competition and stays ahead in the game by reducing costs as well, these high markups brought about by the introduction of such innovative drugs should positively affect the total profitability of the company. Generic competition, possible changes to government drug pricing policies, the more stringent FDA, and more powerful managed-care and pharmacy benefit managers present Pfizer with difficulties in drug development. In some disease areas, developing new drugs is getting harder, and pharmacy benefit managers and managed-care organizations have grown to be strong players with the ability to bargain for cheaper drug costs. Nearly one-fourth of the company's total sales are generated by its medications, Eliquis, Ibrance, and Xtandi, and they are heavily exposed to the Medicare channel. Given that Pfizer's product portfolio is less vulnerable to potential litigation, the company's base-case annual legal costs, assuming a 50% probability of future costs associated with product governance ESG risks, come close to 1% of non-GAAP net income. Pfizer's valuation multiples highlights their strong financial position and potential undervaluation. Their P/E Non-GAAP ratios7.61 (FY1), 7.42 (FY2), and 7.44 (FY3)are lower than JNJ's 14.00 (FY1) and SNY's 10.80 (FY1), suggesting investors may undervalue our earnings potential. The PEG Non-GAAP (FWD) of 1.49 is competitive, higher than SNY's 0.76 but below JNJ's 1.70, reflecting moderate growth prospects. Pfizer's EV/Sales (TTM) of 2.81 is more conservative than JNJ's 4.21, while the EV/EBITDA (FWD) of 7.13 compares favorably to JNJ's 11.45, indicating operational efficiency. The Price to Book (TTM) of 1.44 is significantly lower than JNJ's 5.23, and our Price to Cash Flow (TTM) of 9.29 beats JNJ's 15.67, underscoring robust cash flow generation. These metrics position Pfizer as a value opportunity among peers After the Seagen acquisition, Pfizer released its 2024 guidance, which included a $8 billion COVID-19 product guidance$5 billion less than anticipated. The business admitted that, excluding sales of COVID-19 products, it would not meet the prior growth-rate projection of 6% from 2020 to 2025. Pfizer reaffirmed its support for the dividend, which is regarded as safe and likely to boost stock valuation, despite the deteriorating outlook. Over the next ten years, the company anticipates steady sales as new products counteract older medications that are losing their patent protection. From the middle of 2023 to the end of 2024, Pfizer is anticipated to reduce operating expenses by $4 billion, which will aid the company in adjusting to the waning pandemic and declining sales of COVID-19 products. Growth could be accelerated through acquisitions, and future margin pressure could be reduced through restructuring initiatives. It is estimated that Pfizer's weighted average cost of capital is 7% and its cost of equity is 7.5%. Activist investor Jeffrey Smith's recent stake worth $407 million could presage the much needed turnarounds at Pfizer. Investors and shareholders can reasonably expect further cost-cuts and an efficient use of capital, leading to higher margins and free cashflow. This case could follow the path of Walt Disney, albeit with less drama, where Jeff Ubben of ValueAct had a pivotal role in Disney's turnaround campaign. The large-cap biopharma company Pfizer's debt size, business cyclicality, and debt maturity outlook all contribute to its sound balance sheet and low risk levels. To support opportunistic acquisitions and handle product litigation issues with little market concern, the company should have a strong enough balance sheet. Pfizer spends slightly less on R&D than the industry average, with a mid- to high-teens percentage of sales. Patent losses are offset by the company's robust pipeline of next-generation medications. The company's investment in cutting-edge new medications, mostly aimed at immunology and oncology, improves its standing and increases returns on capital. For biopharma companies in the sector, this balance sheet strength is essential. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rocket Lab Stock Is Soaring Again: Should You Buy It Under $30?
Rocket Lab is gaining a reputation for reliability in the rocket launch and space systems market. The company is building on its capabilities and improving its relationships as a defense contractor. While this young sector shows a lot of great promise, the stock looks overvalued today. 10 stocks we like better than Rocket Lab › Space is the final frontier, and it is now turning into a burgeoning economy. Researchers estimate that the space economy is worth over $500 billion with heavy spending from governments around the world along with private-company partners, and that figure is expected to grow to around $1.8 trillion a year by 2035. This is a huge opportunity for start-ups, perhaps rivaled only by artificial intelligence (AI) over the next decade when it comes to both growth rates and size. One company that dominates (and actually built) the entire space market is SpaceX. It's privately held, but luckily, investors have other space economy stocks that are turning into promising businesses. Enter Rocket Lab (NASDAQ: RKLB), the space flight company increasingly competing with SpaceX and developing promising capabilities to grow its presence in this large market. The stock has begun to soar again and is trading at around $26 as of this writing. Should you buy while shares are still under $30? Rocket Lab began its journey in the space economy with its small Electron rocket. It has now begun to expand and vertically integrate various space economy segments. It just acquired a company called Geost for $275 million. Geost develops optical and infrared capabilities for satellites with a focus on selling to the U.S. government's national security satellites. Rocket Lab is used by the government to launch its payloads into space. Now, it will be helping to build and operate these payloads for customers. It keeps vertically integrating its launch and space systems, which gives it a competitive advantage over other companies that only offer one or the other (SpaceX is the only other vertically integrated player). Rocket Lab offers solar energy, radio systems, and software for companies sending missions operating in space. This is why its backlog was over $1 billion as of the end of last quarter. Electron launch missions will continue throughout 2025, hopefully building on the company's strong safety and reliability record. The next step for the company will be testing and launching its larger Neutron rocket for customers. Testing is underway for this rocket right now with a planned mission for a confidential customer sometime in 2026. Larger rockets mean larger payloads, which means more revenue per launch. It also will give the company more of an opportunity to sell its space systems on these launches. The Neutron is the key for Rocket Lab to take the next step in its capabilities as a space flight company and to grow its backlog and revenue. Defense contracts have been a huge part of Rocket Lab's business. It currently helps with Air Force missions and a hypersonic testing program called HASTE. It was recently added to the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program for its Neutron rocket, another reason why this new rocket is so important for the company's future. A growing relationship with the U.S. government could not have come at a better time for Rocket Lab. The government is set on spending a ton of money on space solutions as the next frontier in national defense. For example, the proposed Golden Dome missile defense project for the U.S. would cost an estimated $175 billion over three years to build. The company would be a prime candidate to win subcontracts for this ambitious project. As the Neutron comes on line and Rocket Lab builds up its capabilities and reputation in the space economy, we should see its backlog climb higher. This is a key indicator for investors to watch. The current backlog will have around half of its revenue recognized over the next 12 months, and half in later periods. In order to grow revenue over the long term, the company will need to grow its backlog and win more contracts from government and commercial customers. There is a lot of potential with Rocket Lab's business, but it might all be priced into the stock (and more) right now. It has a market cap of $12.3 billion. Revenue was only $466 million over the last 12 months. The company has never generated a profit and continues to lose money. If the company is successful with its ambitions to build a vertically integrated space company, it will eventually generate billions of dollars in revenue -- perhaps tens of billions 15 to 20 years from now. However, that is a long way off, and the stock looks fully priced versus what the company can accomplish in the next few years. For this reason, the stock looks like one to avoid even with the price under $30. The business may be promising, but the market is getting ahead of itself with Rocket Lab at the moment. This is a high-risk stock to keep out of your portfolio right now. Before you buy stock in Rocket Lab, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Rocket Lab wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $668,538!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $869,841!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 789% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 Brett Schafer has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Rocket Lab USA. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Rocket Lab Stock Is Soaring Again: Should You Buy It Under $30? was originally published by The Motley Fool
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
ASCO Report of Pioneering Treatment of Lymphopenia with Significant Overall Survival Benefit in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer
While Epogen and Neupogen addresses anemia and neutropenia, no therapy has existed for the treatment of lymphopenia until ANKTIVA® –The Cancer BioShield. Landmark overall survival benefit (P-value 0.005, HR: 0.46 [0.26, 0.80]) observed in 3rd-6th line metastatic pancreatic cancer, correlated with reversal of lymphopenia. Patients with lower tumor burden and improved lymphocyte counts (ALC ≥1,000) had a median overall survival of 10.1 months, supporting earlier intervention in the disease course. CULVER CITY, Calif., June 03, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--ImmunityBio, Inc. (NASDAQ: IBRX) today announced results presented at ASCO 2025 of the first known treatment for lymphopenia with ANKTIVA and CAR-NK therapy. This data supports that reversal of lymphopenia, a well-established root cause of early mortality in patients with cancer across all tumor types, correlates with significant improved survival. While anemia and neutropenia have long been addressed by agents like Epogen and Neupogen, no therapy has ever existed for lymphopenia—until now. ANKTIVA (nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln), an IL-15 superagonist approved in April 2024 for BCG-unresponsive non-muscle- invasive bladder cancer carcinoma in situ with or without papillary disease, represents the first lymphocyte-stimulating agent (LSA) capable of expanding lymphocytes critical for immunogenic cell death, such as natural killer (NK) and T cells. These findings emphasize the need for a therapy to overcome treatment induced lymphopenia with higher mortality as presented at ASCO 2025 by several institutions (Abstract #8054, Satoskar et al. and Abstract #2663, Saleh et al.) In a single-arm QUILT-88 clinical trial of 86 participants with third-to-sixth-line metastatic pancreatic cancer with very high tumor burden (CA19-9 levels exceeding 34,000 IU/ml), for which no therapy currently exists, patients received ANKTIVA subcutaneously in combination with off-the-shelf, ex-vivo infusion of CAR-NK cells (PD-L1 t-haNK) and low dose immuno-modulating chemotherapy. This first reported study of treating lymphopenia demonstrated significant differences in median overall survival in subjects whose lymphopenia was reversed (Absolute Lymphocyte Count: ALC ≥ 1,000). In 67 out of 86 subjects, reversal of lymphopenia was achieved and median overall survival was significantly prolonged compared to those who remained in severe lymphopenia with P-value 0.005, HR: 0.46 (0.26, 0.80) in Figure 1. In subjects with lymphopenia rescue and a lower tumor burden (less than the median CA19-9 of 34,000 IU/mL), the median overall survival in these very advanced metastatic pancreatic cancer patients exceeded 10 months (Figure 2). These findings of improved survival in pancreatic cancer patients with lower tumor burden point to the potential of further prolonged overall survival in pancreatic cancer patients if treated in the first line or neoadjuvant stages of disease. Highlighting the importance of lymphopenia reversal, Oncologist published a peer-reviewed paper titled "Recurrent pancreatic cancer treated with N-803 and PD-L1 t-haNK followed by an EGFR-targeted nanocell drug conjugate," demonstrating that in a patient with 2nd line metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with the full Cancer BioShield platform—including ANKTIVA, CAR-NK cells (PD-L1 t-haNK), and antigen-targeting adenoviruses—remained in remission for over six years and maintains a high quality of life at the date of this release. The expanded access authorization announced yesterday enables patients across all solid tumor types who have exhausted first-line therapy including chemotherapy, radiation, or immunotherapy to receive Anktiva as a lymphocyte stimulating agent to protect the immune system from the lymphogenic adverse effects of current standards of care. The ASCO Annual Meeting 2025 materials from ImmunityBio can be found below: Association of lymphopenia rescue and CA19-9 levels with overall survival following IL-15 superagonist N-803 and PD-L1 t-haNK chemo-immunotherapy for 3rd line or greater metastatic pancreatic Text: Poster PDF: About the Cancer BioShield™ Platform The Cancer BioShield platform is a first-in-class immunotherapy strategy designed to restore immune competence by reversing lymphopenia—the loss of functional immune cells caused by cancer itself and by conventional treatments such as chemotherapy, radiation and immunotherapy. At its core is ANKTIVA® (nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln), an IL-15 agonist approved for BCG-unresponsive non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer CIS with or without papillary disease, activates and proliferates natural killer (NK) cells and CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, restoring lymphocyte levels critical for immunosurveillance, immunogenic cell death, and long-term tumor control. The platform employs a multi-modal approach: In-vivo stimulation: Subcutaneous administration of ANKTIVA expands NK and T cells, boosting anti-tumor immunity. Ex-vivo targeted cytotoxicity: Off-the-shelf PD-L1 t-haNK CAR-NK cells are engineered to target and eliminate PD-L1–expressing tumor cells and immunosuppressive neutrophils (myeloid-derived suppressor cells), enhancing anti-tumor specificity and reducing immune evasion. Memory Cytokine-Enriched Natural Killer (M-ceNK) cell therapy: M-ceNK cells are developed via cytokine activation and expansion of autologous and allogeneic NK cells collected through apheresis, potentially providing long-term immune memory and sustained cytotoxic capacity. Together, these components offer a comprehensive, novel, immune-restoring therapeutic platform aimed at not only expanding effector immune cells but also overcoming tumor-mediated immune suppression to support long-term disease control. The platform's effectiveness can be tracked through universally utilized, simple complete blood count (CBC): increases in absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) reflect ANKTIVA's lymphocyte-stimulating activity, while reductions in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) demonstrate PD-L1 t-haNK's immunosuppressive neutrophil targeting. Low ALC and high NLR levels are laboratory measurements that have been extensively reported as predictive biomarkers of poor prognosis with early mortality across all tumor types5,6. The data presented by ImmunityBio for the first time demonstrates that improving ALC and NLR correlates with significant enhanced overall survival and clinical benefit. About Lymphopenia and Absolute Lymphocyte Count (ALC) Lymphopenia—the loss of key immune cells such as NK, CD4+, and CD8+ T cells—is a common side effect of chemotherapy1, radiation2,3, and some immunotherapies4. Unlike anemia and neutropenia, which have FDA-approved treatments like EPO and Neupogen, no therapy previously existed to treat this immune cell depletion. Lymphopenia weakens the immune system, increases infection risk, and is linked to early death across many cancer types5. Low Absolute Lymphocyte Count (ALC) is a recognized poor prognostic marker. ANKTIVA® is the first approved therapy to restore lymphocyte levels by activating and expanding NK and T cells—without increasing immunosuppressive T regulatory cells7. More information on lymphopenia could be found on Twitter/X @DrPatSoonShiong articles here: References: Ray-Coquard I, et al. Lymphopenia as a prognostic factor for overall survival in advanced carcinomas, sarcomas, and lymphomas. Cancer Res. 2009 Jul 1;69(13):5383-91. doi: 10.1158/ Epub 2009 Jun 23. PMID: 19549917; PMCID: PMC2775079. Chen D, et al. Absolute Lymphocyte Count Predicts Abscopal Responses and Outcomes in Patients Receiving Combined Immunotherapy and Radiation Therapy: Analysis of 3 Phase 1/2 Trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020 Sep 1;108(1):196-203. doi: 10.1016/ Epub 2020 Feb 7. Pike LRG, et al. The Impact of Radiation Therapy on Lymphocyte Count and Survival in Metastatic Cancer Patients Receiving PD-1 Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2019 Jan 1;103(1):142-151. doi: 10.1016/ Epub 2018 Sep 15. PMID: 30227198. Lee, Y.J., et al. Peripheral lymphocyte count as a surrogate marker of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy outcomes in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Sci Rep 12, 626 (2022). Ménétrier-Caux C., et al. Lymphopenia in Cancer Patients and its Effects on Response to Immunotherapy: an opportunity for combination with Cytokines? J Immunother Cancer. 2019 Mar 28;7(1):85. doi: 10.1186/s40425-019-0549-5. PMID: 30922400; PMCID: PMC6437964. Templeton AJ, et al. Prognostic role of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte (NLR) ratio in solid tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 May 29;106(6):dju124. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju124. PMID: 24875653. FDA ANKTIVA Label, April 2024 - About ImmunityBio ImmunityBio is a vertically-integrated biotechnology company developing next-generation therapies and vaccines that bolster the natural immune system to defeat cancers and infectious diseases. The Company's range of immunotherapy and cell therapy platforms, alone and together, act to drive and sustain an immune response with the goal of creating durable and safe protection against disease. Designated an FDA Breakthrough Therapy, ANKTIVA is the first FDA-approved immunotherapy for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer CIS that activates natural killer cells, T cells, and memory T cells for a long-duration response. The Company is applying its science and platforms to treating cancers, including the development of potential cancer vaccines, as well as developing immunotherapies and cell therapies that we believe sharply reduce or eliminate the need for standard high-dose chemotherapy. These platforms and their associated product candidates are designed to be more effective, accessible, and easily administered than current standards of care in oncology and infectious diseases. For more information, visit (Founder's Vision) and connect with us on X (Twitter), Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram. Forward-Looking Statements This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, such as statements regarding clinical trial data and potential results and implications to be drawn therefrom, the expectation that the EAP described herein will enable access to ANKTIVA for patients across all solid tumor types who have exhausted first-line therapy including chemo, radiation or immunotherapy, the RMAT designation as previously reported and potential results therefrom and regulatory submissions in connection therewith, the belief that ALC levels and NLR levels obtained from a CBC are predictors of clinical benefit and outcomes relating to overall survival, the belief that improving ALC levels and NLR levels correlates with enhanced overall survival and clinical benefit, the belief that reversal of lymphopenia correlates with improved survival, clinical trial and expanded access program enrollment, data and potential results to be drawn therefrom, anticipated components of ImmunityBio's Cancer BioShield platform, the development of therapeutics for cancer and infectious diseases, potential benefits to patients, potential treatment outcomes for patients, the described mechanism of action and results and contributions therefrom, potential future uses and applications of ANKTIVA alone or in combination with other therapeutic agents for the prevention or reversal of lymphopenia, potential future uses and applications of ANKTIVA alone or in combination with other therapeutic agents across multiple tumor types and indications and for potential applications beyond oncology, potential regulatory pathways and the regulatory review process and timing thereof, the application of the Company's science and platforms to treat cancers or develop cancer vaccines, immunotherapies and cell therapies that has the potential to change the paradigm in cancer care, and ImmunityBio's approved product and investigational agents as compared to existing treatment options, among others. Statements in this press release that are not statements of historical fact are considered forward-looking statements, which are usually identified by the use of words such as "anticipates," "believes," "continues," "goal," "could," "estimates," "scheduled," "expects," "intends," "may," "plans," "potential," "predicts," "indicate," "projects," "is," "seeks," "should," "will," "strategy," and variations of such words or similar expressions. Statements of past performance, efforts, or results of our preclinical and clinical trials, about which inferences or assumptions may be made, can also be forward-looking statements and are not indicative of future performance or results. Forward-looking statements are neither forecasts, promises nor guarantees, and are based on the current beliefs of ImmunityBio's management as well as assumptions made by and information currently available to ImmunityBio. Such information may be limited or incomplete, and ImmunityBio's statements should not be read to indicate that it has conducted a thorough inquiry into, or review of, all potentially available relevant information. Such statements reflect the current views of ImmunityBio with respect to future events and are subject to known and unknown risks, including business, regulatory, economic and competitive risks, uncertainties, contingencies and assumptions about ImmunityBio, including, without limitation, (i) risks and uncertainties regarding the FDA regulatory submission, filing and review process and the timing thereof, (ii) whether the RMAT designation will lead to an accelerated review or approval, of which there can be no assurance, (iii) risks and uncertainties regarding commercial launch execution, success and timing, (iv) risks and uncertainties regarding participation and enrollment and potential results from the expanded access clinical investigation program described herein, (v) whether clinical trials will result in registrational pathways and the risks, (vi) whether clinical trial data will be accepted by regulatory agencies, (vii) the ability of ImmunityBio to continue its planned preclinical and clinical development of its development programs through itself and/or its investigators, and the timing and success of any such continued preclinical and clinical development, patient enrollment and planned regulatory submissions, (viii) potential delays in product availability and regulatory approvals, (ix) ImmunityBio's ability to retain and hire key personnel, (x) ImmunityBio's ability to obtain additional financing to fund its operations and complete the development and commercialization of its various product candidates, (xi) potential product shortages or manufacturing disruptions that may impact the availability and timing of product, (xii) ImmunityBio's ability to successfully commercialize its approved product and product candidates, (xiii) ImmunityBio's ability to scale its manufacturing and commercial supply operations for its approved product and future approved products, and (xiv) ImmunityBio's ability to obtain, maintain, protect, and enforce patent protection and other proprietary rights for its product candidates and technologies. More details about these and other risks that may impact ImmunityBio's business are described under the heading "Risk Factors" in the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on March 3, 2025, and the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the SEC on May 12, 2025, and in subsequent filings made by ImmunityBio with the SEC, which are available on the SEC's website at ImmunityBio cautions you not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date hereof. View source version on Contacts ImmunityBio Contacts: Investors Hemanth Ramaprakash, PhD, MBA ImmunityBio, Inc. +1 Media Sarah Singleton ImmunityBio, Inc. +1 Sign in to access your portfolio
