Firefly Neuroscience acquires Evoke Neuroscience to expand commercial footprint
This strategic move is said to aid Firefly in setting up a foundation model of the human brain with its brain network analytics (BNA) technology.
The acquisition brings substantial assets to Firefly Neuroscience, including a database of more than 180,000 standardised records of electroencephalography (EEG)/ERP assessments.
Firefly noted that the acquisition has doubled its number of brain scans. Additionally, its patent portfolio has tripled to 27 granted patents, and its commercial reach has expanded over tenfold with more than 60 current commercial users.
The purchase agreement includes a $6m transaction, split evenly between cash and Firefly common stock priced at $3.50 per share.
Furthermore, Evoke's investors are eligible for a $500,000 earn-out to be paid in Firefly common stock, contingent upon the acquired business achieving a minimum of $3m in annualised revenues within the next three-year period.
Firefly Neuroscience CEO Greg Lipschitz said: 'As our already unparalleled BNA database continues to grow with each new clinical study and/or clinical assessment in which our respective technologies are used, and armed with vital access to NVIDIA's advanced software development resources, industry-leading frameworks and software development kits, we believe this acquisition of Evoke represents a key step toward Firefly fulfilling its goal of building the world's first EEG /ERP-based foundation model of the human brain.'
Firefly develops solutions that enhance brain health outcomes for individuals with mental and neurological disorders.
With the launch of BNA for commercial use, Firefly is aiming at pharma companies involved in drug research and trials, as well as medical practitioners.
BNA is claimed to have been developed leveraging AI and machine learning on the company's database of high-definition longitudinal EEGs and cognitive EEG (ERPs) from more than 17,000 individuals across twelve disorders and clinically normal individuals.
Last year, Zeto partnered with Firefly to distribute its FDA-cleared EEG headsets.
"Firefly Neuroscience acquires Evoke Neuroscience to expand commercial footprint" was originally created and published by Medical Device Network, a GlobalData owned brand.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
2 hours ago
- Medscape
Me-Too Cancer Drugs Not Often Compared to Original
TOPLINE: In an analysis of all FDA approvals for anticancer drugs from 2009 to 2020, only about 29% of next-in-class drugs were evaluated in head-to-head randomized clinical trials (RCTs) against their first-in-class counterparts. And in these head-to-head RCTs, only 22% of the 'me-too' agents showed a survival benefit compared to the originals. METHODOLOGY: Next-in-class, or 'me-too,' oncology drugs may theoretically offer improved efficacy, safety, or broader indications, yet little is known about how often RCTs directly compare these me-too agents with first-in-class drugs, leaving their true therapeutic value uncertain. Researchers looked at all 332 FDA approvals for anticancer drugs between 2009 and 2020. After excluding supportive care treatments, biosimilars, and drugs with novel routes of administration, 94 RCTs for me-too agents that received FDA approvals were included. The researchers then identified which next-in-class drugs had RCTs comparing them with their first-in-class counterparts, both at and after approval. Among RCTs with head-to-head comparison, primary endpoints varied across trials, with 63% using progression-free survival, 11% using overall survival, and 11% using response rate as their primary endpoint; 77.8% of trials were designed as superiority trials. TAKEAWAY: Only 27 RCTs that led to FDA approvals for me-too drugs — just under 29% — directly compared the new agent to the first-in-class drug (23 regular approvals and four accelerated approvals). Of these 27 RCTs, 12 trials were published at the time of FDA approval and 15 were published after approval. The median time to publication of post-approval trials was 2.8 years for regular approvals and 3.3 years for accelerated approvals. Overall, only six of the 27 trials (22.2%) demonstrated survival benefits, 14 trials (51.9%) met nonsurvival primary endpoints, and six trials (22.2%) failed to meet their primary endpoints. One trial is still ongoing. Among regular approvals designed as superiority trials, only 11 of 17 (64.7%) met their endpoints. Among accelerated approvals designed as superiority trials, three of four achieved their primary endpoints. The remaining six trials were not designed as superiority trials but met their primary endpoints. IN PRACTICE: 'These results suggest a need for regulatory bodies to incentivize within-class RCTs,' the authors wrote, adding that 'in cases where head-to-head RCTs were lacking, it is difficult to assess the true therapeutic value of next-in-class drugs.' SOURCE: This study, led by Timothée Olivier, MD, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland, was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine. LIMITATIONS: Drug development often occurred in parallel, limiting the feasibility of head-to-head comparisons. Some comparative trials published after the analysis period may not have been captured. DISCLOSURES: This project received funding from Arnold Ventures through a grant to the University of California San Francisco. One author reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures and personal fees from John Hopkins University Press, MedPage, The Free Press, UnitedHealthcare, and other sources, outside the submitted work. Another author disclosed receiving honoraria from MashupMD and Medscape and research funding for his institution from Janssen, outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Business Insider
3 hours ago
- Business Insider
Sarepta Stock (SRPT) Rallies on FDA Nod for Broader Gene Therapy Use
Shares of Sarepta Therapeutics (SRPT) jumped over 14% on Tuesday after the FDA authorized the company to restart shipments of its gene therapy for certain Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) patients. SRPT stock has recovered some of its recent losses but remains down over 80% year-to-date. Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. FDA Reversal Brings Relief for Sarepta On Monday, the FDA recommended partially lifting the hold on Elevidys shipments. The FDA had used a few rare deaths in patients with advanced DMD as a reason to reconsider the drug's approval and potentially remove it from the market. Now, the agency states that boys who can still walk independently are eligible to receive the gene therapy. This decision aligns with the existing evidence showing the treatment's benefits outweigh the risks. Back in June, the company had paused the use of the therapy in boys who could no longer walk while it investigated the safety concerns. Recently, SRPT stock dropped sharply after the FDA asked Sarepta to stop all Elevidys shipments. The decision came after the therapy was linked to two patient deaths, raising safety concerns. In response, the company voluntarily paused U.S. shipments of the treatment. For context, Elevidys is a one-time gene therapy for DMD in patients aged four and older, and it makes up about half of Sarepta's total revenue. What Is the Price Prediction for SRPT? According to TipRanks, Wall Street has a Hold consensus rating on SRPT stock, based on five Buys, 19 Holds, and five Sells assigned in the last three months. The average Sarepta Therapeutics stock price target of $21.68 implies a 37% upside potential.
San Francisco Chronicle
4 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
UCSF's Vinay Prasad quits FDA under pressure from Trump allies
Dr. Vinay Prasad, a prominent UCSF oncologist and outspoken critic of the U.S. government's past pandemic policies, has resigned from his senior post at the Food and Drug Administration less than three months after assuming it. 'Dr. Prasad did not want to be a distraction to the great work of the FDA in the Trump administration and has decided to return to California and spend more time with his family,' said a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services on Tuesday. Prasad was appointed in May to lead the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, overseeing vaccines and gene therapies. He was later named the agency's chief medical and scientific officer. Known for his sharp critiques of federal health policies and drug approvals, Prasad's appointment immediately raised concerns among biotech stakeholders. His sudden exit followed mounting political pressure, including a sustained campaign led by right-wing commentator Laura Loomer, who accused him of being a ' progressive leftist saboteur.' Loomer's criticism focused on Prasad's past podcast episodes and social media activity, where he expressed skepticism of President Donald Trump. Former Sen. Rick Santorum also joined the fray, calling Prasad the man who is destroying the president's 'legacy for helping patients.' Prasad had previously criticized the FDA's 2023 approval of Sarepta Therapeutics' gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. This month, the FDA briefly suspended shipments of the drug following a patient death, only to partially reverse the decision a day before Prasad's resignation. Defending his colleague days before the resignation, FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary described Prasad as 'one of the greatest scientific minds of our generation.'
