AN2 Therapeutics Reports Key Insights from 200-Patient Observational Study in Acute Melioidosis, Laying Groundwork for Phase 2 Proof-of-Concept Trial of Epetraborole
Completed under a contract funded entirely by the National Institutes of Health, the study was completed in just 11 months across three sites in acute melioidosis-endemic regions, demonstrating efficient enrollment and strong site engagement. The study generated an important follow-up dataset for patients treated for acute melioidosis with current standard of care antibiotics, tracking patients for over 90 days. The results revealed a striking mortality rate of nearly 40% (by Day 90) among confirmed melioidosis cases. Principal Investigators observed that approximately 25% of screened patients died in the short period (~3-4 days) before a definitive diagnosis of infection with the causative pathogen (Burkholderia pseudomallei) was confirmed and were not included in the topline mortality rate. These mortality findings highlight the serious impact of melioidosis, the critical importance of early detection and the urgent need for more effective treatment options.
'The study represents a critical step in our mission to transform outcomes for patients with melioidosis,' said Eric Easom, Co-founder, Chairman, President and CEO of AN2 Therapeutics. 'It has given us a much deeper understanding of the patient population, clarified enrollment criteria, and provided the insights needed to design a Phase 2 proof-of-concept trial with the greatest chance of success. The data underscore the devastating impact of melioidosis and the limitations of current therapies, even under best-of-care conditions. We believe epetraborole has the potential to significantly reduce mortality when added to standard treatment. These findings will directly support our planned IND submission, and we look forward to initiating our Phase 2 trial later this year to address this urgent and unmet medical and biodefense need.'
Easom continued,'AN2 recognizes and greatly acknowledges the invaluable contribution of all the organizations involved in the study, especially the University of Oxford, MORU (Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit) and LOMWRU (Lao-Oxford-Mahosot Hospital-Wellcome Trust Research Unit), together with the hospital sites and the patient participants and their families, for enabling this valuable data to be documented in the battle against this disease.'
Due to its high mortality and ease of environmental acquisition, B. pseudomallei is classified as a high priority biothreat agent. If approved for the treatment of acute melioidosis, the Company would seek a priority review voucher and could generate revenue from U.S. and other government stockpiling, as well as from use as a treatment in disease endemic countries, including the U.S.
About Melioidosis
Melioidosis is estimated to cause over 200,000 cases globally each year; the disease-causing pathogen is mostly found in tropical climates, especially in Southeast Asia and northern Australia, where it causes widespread melioidosis. In the United States, B. pseudomallei occurs in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Gulf Coast area of the state of Mississippi.
Funding
This project was funded in whole with Federal funds from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, under Contract No. 75N93022C00059.
About AN2 Therapeutics
AN2 Therapeutics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering and developing novel small molecule therapeutics derived from its boron chemistry platform. AN2 has a pipeline of boron-based compounds in development for Chagas disease, melioidosis, and NTM lung disease caused by M. abscessus, along with early-stage programs focused on targets in infectious diseases and oncology. We are committed to delivering high-impact drugs to patients that address critical unmet needs and improve health outcomes. For more information, please visit our website at www.an2therapeutics.com.
Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements expressed or implied in this press release include, but are not limited to, statements regarding: AN2's plans to transform melioidosis treatment for patients; the design, execution, and outcome of a potential Phase 2 proof of concept trial in melioidosis; epetraborole's potential to treat melioidosis; the impact of melioidosis and efficacy of current standard-of-care treatments; and the ability to obtain a priority review voucher upon potential FDA approval in melioidosis. These statements are based on AN2's current estimates, expectations, plans, objectives and intentions, are not guarantees of future performance and inherently involve significant risks and uncertainties. Actual results and the timing of events could differ materially from those anticipated in such forward-looking statements as a result of these risks and uncertainties, which include, but are not limited to, risks and uncertainties related to: AN2's ability to conduct Phase 2 and future trials in melioidosis; the continued availability of non-dilutive funding, including U.S. federal government funding, to support future development; timely enrollment of patients in AN2's clinical trials; disruptions at the FDA and other government agencies caused by funding shortages, staff reductions and statutory, regulatory and policy changes; AN2's ability to procure sufficient supply of its product candidates for its clinical trials; the potential for results from clinical trials to differ from preclinical, early clinical, preliminary or expected results, significant adverse events, toxicities or other undesirable side effects associated with AN2's product candidates; the significant uncertainty associated with AN2's product candidates ever receiving any regulatory approvals; AN2's ability to obtain, maintain or protect intellectual property rights related to its current and future product candidates; the sufficiency of AN2's capital resources and need for additional capital to achieve its goals; global macroeconomic conditions and global conflicts and other risks, including those described under the heading 'Risk Factors' in AN2's Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and other reports filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). These filings, when made, are available on the investor relations section of AN2's website at www.an2therapeutics.com and on the SEC's website at www.sec.gov. Forward-looking statements contained in this press release are made as of this date, and AN2 undertakes no duty to update such information except as required under applicable law.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
S&P/TSX composite edges higher in late-morning trading
TORONTO — Canada's main stock index edged higher in late-morning trading as strength in the industrial sector battled weakness in technology and base metal stocks. The S&P/TSX composite index was up 2.03 points at 27,924.88. In New York, the Dow Jones industrial average was up 74.32 points at 44,986.14. The S&P 500 index was down 22.59 points at 6,426.56, while the Nasdaq composite was down 225.40 points at 21,404.37. The Canadian dollar traded for 72.19 cents US compared with 72.42 cents US on Monday. The October crude oil contract was down 64 cents US at US$62.06 per barrel. The December gold contract was down US$11.90 at US$3,366.10 an ounce. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 19, 2025. Companies in this story: (TSX:GSPTSE, TSX:CADUSD) The Canadian Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Atlantic
25 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The Two-Word Phrase Unleashing Chaos at the NIH
Since January, President Donald Trump's administration has been clear about its stance on systemic racism and gender identity: Those concepts—championed by a 'woke' mob, backed by Biden cronies—are made-up, irrelevant to the health of Americans, and unworthy of inclusion in research. At the National Institutes of Health, hundreds of research studies on health disparities and transgender health have been abruptly defunded; clinical trials focused on improving women's health have been forced to halt. Online data repositories that contain gender data have been placed under review. And top agency officials who vocally supported minority representation in research have been ousted from their jobs. These attacks have often seemed at odds with the administration's stated goals of fighting censorship in science at the NIH and liberating public health from ideology. But its members behave as though they have no dogma of their own —just a wholehearted devotion to scientific rigor, in the form of what the nation's leaders have repeatedly called 'gold-standard science.' This pretense—that the government can obliterate entire fields of study while standing up for free inquiry—is encapsulated by what's become a favored bit of MAHA rhetoric: All research is allowed, the administration likes to say, so long as it's 'scientifically justifiable.' On Friday, the phrase scientifically justified appeared several times in a statement by the NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya that set the agenda for his agency and ordered a review of all research to make sure that it fits with the agency's priorities. 'I have advocated for academic freedom throughout my career,' he wrote in a letter to his staff that accompanied the statement. 'Scientists must be allowed to pursue their ideas free of censorship or control by others.' But his announcement went on to warn that certain kinds of data, including records of people's race or ethnicity, may not always be worthy of inclusion in research. Only when its consideration of those factors has been 'scientifically justified,' he wrote, would a project qualify for NIH support. That message may seem unimpeachable—in keeping, even, with the priorities of the world's largest public funder of biomedical research: NIH-backed studies should be justified in scientific terms. But the demand that Bhattacharya lays out has no formal criteria attached to it. Scientific justifiability is, to borrow Bhattacharya's description of systemic racism, a 'poorly-measured factor.' It's imprecise at best and, at worst, a subjective appraisal of research that invites political meddling. (Neither the NIH nor the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees it, responded to my questions about the meaning and usage of this phrase.) Judging scientific merit has always been one of the NIH's most essential tasks. Tens of thousands of scientists serve on panels for the agency each year, scouring applications for funding; only the most rigorous projects are selected to receive portions of the agency's $47 billion budget—most of which goes to research outside the agency itself. All of the thousands of grants the agency has terminated this year under the Trump administration were originally vetted in this way, by subject-matter experts with deep knowledge of the underlying science. Many of the studies have been recast, in letters from the agency, as being 'antithetical to the scientific inquiry,' indifferent to 'biological realities,' or otherwise scientifically unjustified. The same language from Bhattacharya's email appears in other recent NIH documents. Last week, an official at the agency sent me a copy of a draft policy that, if published, would prohibit the collection of all data on people's gender (as opposed to their sex) by any of the agency's researchers and grantees, regardless of their field of study. It allows for an exception only when the consideration of gender is 'scientifically justified.' The gender-data policy was uploaded to an internal portal typically reserved for agency guidance that is about to be published, but has since been removed. (Its existence was first reported by The Chronicle of Higher Education.) When reached for comment, an HHS official told The Atlantic that the policy had been shot down by NIH leadership, but declined to provide any further details on the timing of that shift, or who, exactly, had been involved in the policy's drafting or dismissal. Still, if any version of this policy remains under consideration at the agency, its aims would be in keeping with others that are already in place. One NIH official told me that one of the agency's 27 institutes and centers, the National Institute for General Medical Sciences, has, since April, sent out hundreds of letters to grantees noting, 'If this award involves human subjects research, information regarding study participant 'gender' should not be collected. Rather, 'sex' should be used for data collection and reporting purposes.' Payments to those researchers, the official said, have been made contingent on the scientists agreeing to those terms within two business days. 'Most have accepted,' the official told me, 'because they're desperate.' (The current and former NIH officials who spoke with me for this article did so under the condition of anonymity, to be able to speak freely about how both Trump administrations have affected their work.) Collecting data on study participants' gender has been and remains, in many contexts, scientifically justified—at least, if one takes that to mean supported by the existing literature on the topic, Arrianna Planey, a medical geographer at the University of North Carolina, told me. Evidence shows that sex is not binary, that gender is distinct from it, and that acknowledging the distinction improves health research. In its own right, gender can influence—via a mix of physiological, behavioral, and social factors—a person's vulnerability to conditions and situations as diverse as mental-health issues, sexual violence, cardiovascular disease, infectious diseases, and cancer. The Trump administration has expressed some interest in gender-focused research—but in a way that isn't justified by the existing science in the field. In March, NIH officials received a memo noting that HHS had been directed to fund research into 'regret and detransition following social transition as well as chemical and surgical mutilation of children and adults.' That framing presupposes the conclusions of such studies and ignores the most pressing knowledge gaps in the field: understanding the long-term outcomes of transition on mental and physical health, and how best to tailor interventions to patients. (Bhattacharya's Friday statement echoed this stance, specifically encouraging 'research that aims to identify and treat the harms these therapies and procedures have potentially caused to minors.') According to the draft prohibition on collecting gender data, NIH-employed scientists would be eligible for an exception only when the scientific justification for their work is approved by Matthew Memoli, the agency's principal deputy director. Memoli has played this role before. After Trump put out his executive order seeking to abolish government spending on DEI, Memoli— then the NIH's acting director —told his colleagues that the agency's research into health disparities could continue as long as it was 'scientifically justifiable,' two NIH officials told me. Those officials I spoke with could not recall any instances in which NIH staff successfully lobbied for such studies to continue, and within weeks, the agency was cutting off funding from hundreds of research projects, many of them working to understand how and why different populations experience different health outcomes. (Some of those grants have since been reinstated after a federal judge ruled in June that they had been illegally canceled.) The mixing of politics and scientific justifiability goes back even to Trump's first term. In 2019, apparently in deference to lobbying from anti-abortion groups, the White House pressured the NIH to restrict research using human fetal tissue—prompting the agency to notify researchers that securing new funds for any projects involving the material would be much more difficult. Human fetal tissue could be used in some cases, 'when scientifically justifiable.' But to meet that bar, researchers needed to argue their case in their proposals, then hope their projects passed muster with an ethics advisory board. In the end, that board rejected 13 of the 14 projects it reviewed. 'They assembled a committee of people for whom nothing could be scientifically justified,' a former NIH official, who worked in grants at the time of the policy change, told me. 'I remember saying at the time, 'Why can't they just tell us they want to ban fetal-tissue research? It would be a lot less work.'' The NIH's 2019 restriction on human-fetal-tissue research felt calamitous at the time, one NIH official told me. Six years later, it seems rather benign. Even prior to the change in policy, human fetal tissue was used in only a very small proportion of NIH-funded research. But broad restrictions on gathering gender data, or conducting studies that take race or ethnicity into account, could upend most research that collects information on people—amounting to a kind of health censorship of the sort that Bhattacharya has promised to purge. The insistence that 'scientifically justifiable' research will be allowed to continue feels especially unconvincing in 2025, coming from an administration that has so often and aggressively been at odds with conventional appraisals of scientific merit. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the head of HHS, has been particularly prone to leaning on controversial, biased, and poorly conducted studies, highlighting only the results that support his notions of the truth, while ignoring or distorting others. During his confirmation hearing, he cited a deeply flawed study from a journal at the margins of the scientific literature as proof that vaccines cause autism (they don't); in June, he called Alzheimer's a kind of diabetes (it's not); this month, he and his team justified cutting half a billion dollars from mRNA-vaccine research by insisting that the shots are more harmful than helpful (they're not), even though many of the studies they cited to back their claims directly contradicted them. Kennedy, it seems, 'can't scientifically justify any of his positions,' Jake Scott, an infectious-disease physician at Stanford, who has analyzed Kennedy's references to studies, told me. Bhattacharya's call for a full review of NIH research and training is predicated on an impossible, and ironic, standard. Scientists are being asked to prove the need for demographic variables that long ago justified their place in research—by an administration that has yet to show it could ever do the same.
Business Wire
27 minutes ago
- Business Wire
PPB Capital Partners Propels Growth Trajectory Forward
CONSHOHOCKEN, Pa.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--PPB Capital Partners, a leading alternative investment provider offering access and tailored solutions for the private wealth community, announced a series of milestones underscoring sustained momentum and dedication to advancing alternative investments. As a pioneering alternative investment provider, the firm's agility in navigating a changing market and addressing the evolving needs of private wealth advisors continues to power its sustained momentum. This adaptability has propelled the firm forward. In 2024, the firm achieved 39.3% topline revenue growth, further underscoring its strong trajectory and market leadership, earning PPB a place on the 2025 Inc. 5000 list of America's fastest-growing private companies. This recognition is a testament to PPB's strategic vision, disciplined execution, and unwavering client-first approach. 'Our growth is fueled by a clear vision: to deliver highly differentiated alternative investment solutions that meet the shifting needs of private wealth advisors,' said Brendan Lake, Founder & CEO of PPB Capital Partners. 'This recognition reflects the trust of our advisors and partners, as well as the dedication of our team to creating value across the alternatives spectrum.' Expanded Platform with New Institutional-Caliber Managers PPB continues to build its Capital Markets Solutions (CMS) program, offering high-net-worth investors streamlined access to the entire alternative investment asset class that is historically reserved for large institutional investors. The most recent addition is Northmarq Fund Management, a preferred equity commercial real estate manager, alongside other top-tier managers, broadening the scope of opportunities available to advisors and their clients. Broader Strategy Access Across Alternatives The platform now includes a more diversified range of alternative strategies, spanning real estate, private credit, private equity, digital assets, litigation finance, and music and entertainment royalties. Among other niche opportunities, this diverse access empowers advisors to customize allocations in line with their clients' objectives. Enhanced Customized Solutions, Including Registered Offerings PPB has also expanded its customized solutions capabilities—including registered product structures—designed to meet the operational, regulatory, and portfolio objectives of private wealth advisors. These solutions enable advisors to offer a broader range of clients enhanced access, tax efficiency, and scalability without adding operational complexity. 'Our mission is to simplify the complexities of alternatives, so advisors can focus on growing their practice and supporting important client relationships,' Evan Deussing, CIMA, Head of Distribution at PPB Capital Partners. About PPB Capital Partners PPB Capital Partners is a full-service alternative investment provider that partners with private wealth advisors to deliver curated access to differentiated alternative investment strategies, customized fund solutions, and operational excellence. PPB's alternative solutions are designed to simplify investing in alternative investments, enabling advisors to grow and scale their businesses and focus on their core value in the eyes of their clients. *The Inc. 5000 list ranking, conducted by Inc., is based on information regarding private companies in America. The criteria includes privately held, for-profit based in the U.S., generated revenue by March 31, 2021, generated at least $100,000 in revenue in 2021, and generated at least $2 million in revenue in 2024. PPB Capital Partners paid Inc. 5000 a fee to be evaluated for possible inclusion in the list, but did not to be included in the rankings.
