GSK Licenses Shigella Vaccine to Bharat Biotech
GSK plc (NYSE:GSK) is . On June 12, the company announced licensing its Shigella vaccine candidate to Bharat Biotech. The licensing is part of the company's effort to get the vaccine to patients where the pathogen poses a significant threat of causing death from diarrhea.
A closeup of a vial of the biotechnology company's vaccines.
Shigella is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of children under five years in low and middle-income countries. GSK has developed altSonflex 1-2-3 to address the unmet need. Phase 1 and interim Phase 2 data of the candidate vaccine have already met the company's immunogenicity success criteria.
Bharat Biotech will take charge of the continued development of altSonflex1-2-3, which encompasses Phase 3 clinical trials, regulatory progress, and large-scale production. GSK will support the initiative by helping design clinical trials, obtaining external financing, and aiding in access, delivery, and commercialization strategies.
GSK plc (NYSE:GSK) is a global pharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development, and manufacture of medicines and vaccines. Its products are distributed worldwide through a broad network of wholesalers, pharmacies, hospitals, and healthcare providers.
While we acknowledge the potential of GSK as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock.
READ NEXT: 10 Stocks Analysts Are Upgrading Today and 13 Best AI Stocks to Buy Under $10.
Disclosure: None.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Teva, Fosun Pharma partner to develop TEV-56278
Teva (TEVA) Pharmaceutical and Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical announced that the companies, through their respective subsidiaries, have entered a strategic partnership for the development of investigational TEV-56278, an anti-PD1-IL2 ATTENUKINE therapy. Teva's internally developed ATTENUKINE technology provides a new mechanism of action, potentially offering high efficacy and low toxicity in a broad array of oncology indications. Under the terms of the agreement, which aims to accelerate clinical data generation, Fosun Pharma is granted an exclusive license to develop, manufacture and commercialize TEV-56278 in Chinese mainland, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Macau SAR and Taiwan region and select Southeast Asian countries. Teva retains all development, manufacturing and commercialization rights to the licensed molecule in the rest of the world. The strategic partnership presents a significant step forward in the global development of TEV-56278, giving Teva the opportunity to leverage Fosun Pharma-generated data in other geographies. Easily unpack a company's performance with TipRanks' new KPI Data for smart investment decisions Receive undervalued, market resilient stocks right to your inbox with TipRanks' Smart Value Newsletter Published first on TheFly – the ultimate source for real-time, market-moving breaking financial news. Try Now>> See Insiders' Hot Stocks on TipRanks >> Read More on TEVA: Disclaimer & DisclosureReport an Issue Teva, Fosun enter strategic partnership to develop TEV-56278 Teva put volume heavy and directionally bearish Teva 'well positioned for upside from here,' says JPMorgan CrowdStrike and McDonald's downgraded: Wall Street's top analyst calls Teva initiated with a Buy at Goldman Sachs 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
Medscape
2 hours ago
- Medscape
Metformin Timing and Pregnancy Outcomes in PCOS
For women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), continuing preconception metformin throughout the first trimester rather than stopping it at the positive pregnancy test might reduce the risk for miscarriage and improve pregnancy outcomes. METHODOLOGY: Researchers conducted a meta-analysis by searching the literature across MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases to determine how the timing of metformin treatment specifically affects pregnancy outcomes in women with PCOS. They included 12 randomised controlled trials including 1708 women with PCOS and compared preconception metformin, continued until at least pregnancy confirmation, with placebo or no treatment. The primary outcome was the miscarriage rate; secondary outcomes were the clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate. Indirect comparisons between continuing metformin throughout the first trimester and stopping it at pregnancy confirmation were performed using the Bucher technique to evaluate key pregnancy outcomes. TAKEAWAY: Women who continued preconception metformin throughout the first trimester had a lower risk for miscarriage (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.32-1.25) and higher clinical pregnancy rates (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.11-2.23) and live birth rates (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.59-2.61) than those who received either placebo or no treatment. Women who stopped metformin at pregnancy confirmation showed a higher risk for miscarriage (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 0.73-2.90) and higher clinical pregnancy rates (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.01-1.80) than those who received either placebo or no treatment. Women who continued metformin throughout the first trimester experienced a lower risk for miscarriage (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.17-1.16) and higher clinical pregnancy rates (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.74-1.83) and live birth rates (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.41-3.13) than those who stopped metformin at the positive pregnancy test. IN PRACTICE: "The [study] findings suggest that discontinuing metformin upon pregnancy confirmation may cause a delayed 'rebound' effect, potentially increasing insulin resistance and adversely affecting pregnancy outcomes later in the first trimester," the authors wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by James Cheshire, PhD, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, England. It was published online on June 03, 2025, in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology . LIMITATIONS: The major limitation of this study was the heterogeneous nature of the population and the overall low quality of evidence. Findings may not be applicable to all PCOS phenotypes as the study did not account for differences in phenotypes and degrees of hyperandrogenism and insulin resistance in women with PCOS. Many studies did not stratify pregnancy outcome data on the basis of BMI, preventing meaningful subgroup analyses and potentially affecting the findings. DISCLOSURES: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared having no competing interests.
Medscape
2 hours ago
- Medscape
Anal Cancer Screening Benefits HIV-Positive MSM at Age 35
Analysis reveals initiating anal cancer screening at age 35 years or older among men who have sex with men (MSM) with HIV is cost-effective. A greater value was seen if screening was started at 35 years than at 40-45 years of age. METHODOLOGY: MSM with HIV face a markedly elevated risk for anal cancer, with an incidence of 85 cases per 100,000 persons. The Anal Cancer-HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) trial recently demonstrated that anal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) treatment reduces anal cancer risk among people with HIV. A microsimulation model was developed to simulate the life course of MSM with HIV, including natural histories of HIV, human papillomavirus(HPV), HSIL, and anal cancer. Analysis included MSM with HIV aged 35 years or older in 2019 for the base-case analysis, with additional sensitivity analyses for newly eligible cohorts at 5-year increments up to age 55 years. Researchers evaluated cytology alone, HPV testing options, co-testing, and triage strategies across different screening intervals (annual, biennial, triennial, or quadrennial). Outcome measures encompassed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in dollars per quality-adjusted life-year and tradeoff of harms vs benefits. TAKEAWAY: Without screening, researchers predicted 4064 anal cancer cases and 680 deaths would occur over the lifetime of 100,000 MSM with HIV aged 35 years or older. Screening initiation at age 35 years demonstrated greater value than starting at age 40 or 45 years, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $87,731 for quadrennial intervals to $350,100 for annual intervals. The quadrennial HPV16/18 strategy remained cost-effective through age 55 years, supporting screening initiation up to this age. Compared with no screening, anal cancer mortality reduction ranged from 25.8% for quadrennial cytology with HPV16 triage to 63.1% for annual cytology with high-risk HPV co-testing. IN PRACTICE: 'Our model estimated that annual cytology screening among MSM with HIV aged 35 years or older could reduce anal cancer mortality by up to 65% and found that triennial cytology was cost-efficient vs screening at age 40 or 45 years or older and cost-effective vs no screening. In our comparative effectiveness analysis, HPV-based screening, particularly triennial testing for HPV16/18, was efficient,' the authors of the study wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by Ashish A. Deshmukh, PhD, MPH, Department of Public Health Sciences and Hollings Cancer Center, Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, South Carolina. It was published online on June 17 in Annals of Internal Medicine . LIMITATIONS: This study assumed perfect adherence to all screening, diagnosis, and follow-up treatments, which may not reflect real-world conditions. In 2019, only 5% of people with HIV in the US had been screened for anal cancer in the preceding 12 months, likely due to the absence of consensus recommendations and limited high-resolution anoscopy capacity. Additionally, in settings with available screening resources, treatment uptake was poor and attrition during surveillance was common, which may alter the overall effectiveness and relative harm-to-benefit ratios of screening strategies. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The findings and conclusions contained in the study do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of the National Institutes of Health.
