Connect with us


Bristol Myers Squibb 2022: The new normal

With Celgene and other acquisition costs in the rearview, Bristol Myers Squibb returned to profitability with a vengeance in 2021.



With Celgene and other acquisition costs in the rearview, Bristol Myers Squibb returned to profitability with a vengeance in 2021.

By Joshua Slatko •


Bristol Myers Squibb

430 E. 29th Street, 14th floor 

New York, NY 10016

212-546-4200 •

Financial Performance
  2021 2020 1H 2022 1H 2021
Revenue $46,385 $42,518 $23,535 $22,776
Net income $7,014 $(8,995) $2,712 $3,090
Diluted EPS $3.12 $(3.99) $1.25 $1.36
R&D expense $11,354 $11,143 $4,581 $4,697
All figures are in millions of dollars, except EPS.

Best-selling products

All sales are in millions of dollars.

2021 sales

  • Revlimid $12,821 
  • Eliquis $10,762 
  • Opdivo $7,523 
  • Pomalyst $3,332 
  • Orencia $3,306 
  • Sprycel $2,117 
  • Yervoy $2,206 
  • Abraxane $1,181 
  • Reblozyl $551

 1H 2022 sales

  • Eliquis $6,446 
  • Revlimid $5,298 
  • Opdivo $3,986 
  • Pomalyst $1,734 
  • Orencia $1,668 
  • Yervoy $1,040 
  • Sprycel $1,027 
  • Abraxane $455 
  • Reblozyl $328

Outcomes Creativity Index Score: 4

  • Manny Awards — 2
  • Cannes Lions — N/A
  • Clio Health — N/A
  • Creative Floor Awards — N/A
  • London International Awards – N/A
  • MM+M Awards — 2
  • One Show — N/A


Board Chair and CEO Giovanni Caforio

2020 may have been the first year of the new, post-Celgene acquisition version of Bristol Myers Squibb, but 2021 was the first year that BMS 2.0 started putting money back in its shareholders’ pockets again. With the Celgene charges now past and nearly all of the company’s blockbuster products showing growth, BMS was able to generate more than $7 billion in profit for the year, a number that would have been inconceivable in the old days. And while sales of the biggest prize of the Celgene acquisition, Revlimid, are beginning to fade due to generic competition, products like Eliquis, Opdivo, Pomalyst, and Orencia look likely to keep BMS in its new top-shelf industry position for some time to come.

“I am very pleased with the continued strong demand for our in-line products and new product portfolio, resulting in solid top and bottom-line growth,” said Giovanni Caforio, M.D., board chair and CEO, Bristol Myers Squibb, in the company’s 2Q22 earnings announcement. “The momentum with our business and strength of our pipeline, gives us significant opportunities to drive continued growth, starting with the anticipated approval for deucravacitinib in moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and the expected transition of milvexian, our next-generation anti-thrombotic, to Phase III development. With our financial strength and dedicated workforce, we are well positioned to help more patients and drive long-term value for our shareholders.”

Eliquis, Bristol Myers Squibb

Eliquis reached the $10 billion sales mark in 2021 with growth of 17.4 percent. In 2022, Eliquis passed Revlimid to become Bristol Myers’ top-selling product.

BMS’ top-line revenue in 2021 was $46.39 billion, an improvement of 9.1 percent over the previous year. Net income for the year totaled $7.01 billion, and earnings per share was $3.12. While the bottom-line numbers from 2020 were impacted significantly by large charges relating to the Celgene and MyoKardia acquisitions, leading to a GAAP net loss of nearly $9 billion that year, company leaders estimated non-GAAP EPS at $6.44 per share for 2020 and $7.51 per share in 2021, an improvement of 16.6 percent. In the first half of 2022, BMS’ top line was $23.54 billion, up 3.3 percent, while net income declined 12.2 percent to $2.71 billion and EPS was down 11 cents to $1.25. BMS executives are projecting full-year 2022 EPS at $2.71-$3.01.

Partnerships and acquisitions

In January, BMS and Century Therapeutics announced a research collaboration and license agreement to develop and commercialize up to four induced pluripotent stem cell (“iPSC”) derived, engineered natural killer cell (“iNK”) and / or T cell (“iT”) programs for hematologic malignancies and solid tumors. The first two programs include a program in acute myeloid leukemia and a program in multiple myeloma, which could incorporate either the iNK or a gamma delta iT platform. Bristol Myers Squibb has the option to add two additional programs which can be nominated subject to certain conditions agreed with Century in the agreement.

Century is responsible for development candidate discovery and preclinical development activities. Thereafter, Bristol Myers Squibb will be responsible for clinical development and commercialization activities subject to Century’s co-promotion rights on certain programs. Under the terms of the agreement, Century received a $100 million upfront payment and Bristol Myers Squibb will make a $50 million equity investment in Century Therapeutics’ common stock at a price of $23.14 per share. In addition, Century will receive reimbursement of certain preclinical development costs for development candidates licensed by Bristol Myers Squibb, and is eligible for additional payments for future program initiations and development, regulatory, and commercial milestone payments totaling more than $3 billion across the four potential programs.

Century will also receive tiered royalties as a percentage of global net sales in the high-single to low-double digits. In addition, under the agreement, Century may elect to co-promote the AML program and one of the additional programs in the United States for no exercise fee which will also trigger enhanced U.S. royalties.

In June, BMS agreed to acquire Turning Point Therapeutics for $76 per share in an all-cash transaction for a total consideration of $4.1 billion in equity value. Turning Point is a clinical-stage precision oncology company with a pipeline of investigational medicines designed to target the most common mutations associated with oncogenesis. The company’s lead asset, repotrectinib, is a next-generation, potential best-in-class tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) targeting the ROS1 and NTRK oncogenic drivers of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and other advanced solid tumors. Repotrectinib has been granted three Breakthrough Therapy Designations by the FDA. In the Phase I/II TRIDENT-1 clinical trial, longer duration of response has been observed in the landmark analysis with repotrectinib than with existing ROS1 agents in first-line NSCLC. BMS executives expect repotrectinib to be approved in the United States in the second half of 2023. The transaction duly closed in August. 

Also in June, BMS and Immatics N.V. announced that they have expanded their strategic alliance to pursue the development of multiple allogeneic off-the-shelf TCR-T and/or CAR-T programs. Under this collaboration, Bristol Myers Squibb and Immatics will develop two programs owned by Bristol Myers Squibb and both companies have an option to develop up to four additional programs each. The programs will utilize Immatics’ proprietary gamma delta T cell-derived, allogeneic Adoptive Cell Therapy (ACT) platform, called ACTallo, and a suite of next-generation technologies developed by Bristol Myers Squibb.

Under the terms of this agreement, Immatics received an upfront payment of $60 million as well as up to $700 million per Bristol Myers Squibb program through development, regulatory, and commercial milestone payments and tiered royalty payments of up to low double-digit percentages on net product sales. Immatics is responsible for preclinical development of the initial two Bristol Myers Squibb-owned programs and will receive additional payment for certain activities that Immatics could perform at Bristol Myers Squibb’s request. Bristol Myers Squibb will assume responsibility for clinical development and commercialization activities of all BMS-owned programs thereafter.

In addition, Bristol Myers Squibb and Immatics will expand their 2019 collaboration agreement focused on autologous T cell receptor-based therapy (TCR-T), with the inclusion of one additional TCR target discovered by Immatics. As part of this expansion, Immatics will receive an upfront payment of $20 million and is eligible for milestone payments and royalties.

Product performance

The multiple myeloma drug Revlimid led BMS’ portfolio in 2021 with sales of $12.82 billion, an improvement of 5.9 percent. According to company executives, this was due to higher average net selling prices and higher demand in the United States and higher demand internationally. In the first half of 2022, sales of Revlimid declined 13.8 percent to $5.3 billion due to loss of exclusivity 

The cardiovascular product Eliquis enjoyed sales of $10.76 billion in 2021, up 17.4 percent. According to BMS leaders, this was due to higher demand both in the United States and internationally. In the first half of 2022. Eliquis passed Revlimid to become the leading seller in BMS’ portfolio, with sales growing by 13.5 percent to $6.45 billion. 

Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb

The immuno-oncologic Opdivo generated more than $7.5 billion in sales for BMS in 2021; the drug has earned new approvals from FDA for NSCLC and ESCC since the beginning of 2022.

Opdivo, BMS’ leading immuno-0ncologic, generated $7.52 billion in sales for the company in 2021, an improvement of 7.6 percent. BMS leaders say this was due to higher domestic demand across multiple therapies including the Opdivo and Yervoy combinations in NSCLC, the Opdivo and Cabometyx combination in kidney cancer, and Opdivo in various gastric and esophageal cancers, and higher average net selling prices, partially offset by declining second-line eligibility across tumor indications and increased competition. In the first half of 2022, sales of Opdivo rose another 9.8 percent to $3.99 billion. 

In February, BMS and Exelixis Inc. announced two-year (25.4 months minimum; 32.9 months median) follow-up results from analyses of the Phase III CheckMate -9ER trial, demonstrating sustained survival and response rate benefits, as well as health-related quality of life improvements, with the combination of Opdivo and Cabometyx versus sunitinib in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. 

At the final OS analysis, Opdivo in combination with Cabometyx continued to show meaningful improvements in median OS (37.7 months versus 34.3 months) and demonstrated a 30 percent reduction in the risk of death compared to sunitinib. Progression-free survival (PFS) benefits were maintained, with the combination continuing to double median PFS versus sunitinib (16.6 months versus 8.3 months, respectively). ORR benefits were sustained, with nearly twice as many patients responding to Opdivo in combination with Cabometyx versus sunitinib (55.7 percent versus 28.4 percent). Responses were also more durable with the combination, with a median DoR of 23.1 months, compared to 15.1 months with sunitinib. CR rates more than doubled among patients treated with the combination, with 12.4 percent having a CR versus 5.2 percent of those treated with sunitinib.

In March, FDA approved Opdivo in combination with platinum-doublet chemotherapy every three weeks for three cycles for adult patients with resectable (tumors ≥4 cm or node positive) NSCLC in the neoadjuvant setting. Opdivo plus chemotherapy was approved regardless of PD-L1 status. The approval was based on the CheckMate -816 trial, the first positive Phase III trial of an immunotherapy-based combination used before surgery for resectable NSCLC. The trial showed that neoadjuvant treatment with three cycles of Opdivo in combination with chemotherapy significantly improved event-free survival (EFS), a primary endpoint, compared to chemotherapy alone in patients with resectable NSCLC. With a minimum follow-up of 21.0 months, Opdivo with chemotherapy reduced the risk of disease recurrence, progression or death by 37 percent across randomized patients when administered before surgery. In patients receiving the combination, median EFS was 31.6 months, compared to 20.8 months for patients treated with chemotherapy alone.

Also in March, BMS and Nektar Therapeutics announced that the first analysis of the Phase III PIVOT IO-001 study evaluating the doublet therapy of bempegaldesleukin in combination with Opdivo compared to Opdivo monotherapy as a first-line treatment for previously untreated unresectable or metastatic melanoma showed that the study did not meet the primary endpoints of progression-free survival and objective response rate as assessed by Blinded Independent Central Review, and that the third primary endpoint of overall survival (OS) did not meet statistical significance at the first interim analysis.

In April, Nektar and BMS announced that based on results from pre-planned analyses of two late-stage clinical studies of bempegaldesleukin in combination with Opdivo in renal cell carcinoma and bladder cancer, the companies had jointly decided to end the global clinical development program for bempegaldesleukin in combination with Opdivo. These studies and all other ongoing studies in the program will be discontinued. 

In May, FDA approved both Opdivo in combination with fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy and Opdivo plus Yervoy as a first-line treatment for adult patients with unresectable advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma regardless of PD-L1 status. The approvals were based on the Phase III CheckMate -648 trial, which evaluated Opdivo in combination with chemotherapy and Opdivo plus Yervoy each compared to chemotherapy alone, and was the largest Phase III trial of an immunotherapy in first-line ESCC.

In the trial, Opdivo in combination with chemotherapy demonstrated superior overall survival compared to chemotherapy alone, both in all randomized patients, a secondary endpoint, which was hierarchically tested and in patients whose tumors express PD-L1 (≥1%), a primary endpoint. In all randomized patients the median OS was 13.2 months with Opdivo in combination with chemotherapy versus 10.7 months with chemotherapy alone. In patients whose tumors express PD-L1 (≥1%) the mOS was 15.4 months for Opdivo in combination with chemotherapy versus 9.1 months with chemotherapy alone. The median progression-free survival in all randomized patients, which was a hierarchically tested secondary endpoint, was 5.8 months for Opdivo in combination with chemotherapy and 5.6 months for chemotherapy alone. Per pre-specified analysis, PFS did not meet statistical significance. The median PFS in patients whose tumors express PD-L1 (≥1%), which was a co-primary endpoint, was 6.9 months for Opdivo in combination with chemotherapy and 4.4 months for chemotherapy alone.

Opdivo plus Yervoy also improved OS compared to chemotherapy in all-randomized patients, a secondary endpoint, which was hierarchically tested and patients whose tumors express PD-L1 (≥1%), a primary endpoint. The mOS was 12.8 months with Opdivo plus Yervoy versus 10.7 months with chemotherapy alone in all randomized patients and 13.7 months with Opdivo plus Yervoy versus 9.1 months with chemotherapy alone in patients whose tumors express PD-L1 (≥1%). The median PFS in patients whose tumors express PD-L1 (≥1%), which was a co-primary endpoint, was 4.0 months for Opdivo plus Yervoy and 4.4 months for chemotherapy alone. Per pre-specified analysis, PFS did not meet statistical significance. Median PFS in the PD-L1 (≥1%) population was not statistically significant and therefore it was not hierarchically tested in the all comers population.

Also in May, BMS announced the Phase III CheckMate -901 trial, comparing Opdivo plus Yervoy to standard-of-care chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, did not meet the primary endpoint of overall survival in patients whose tumor cells express PD-L1 ≥1% at final analysis.

In June, BMS announced three-year follow-up results from the Phase III CheckMate -9LA trial demonstrating durable survival benefits with Opdivo plus Yervoy with two cycles of chemotherapy compared to four cycles of chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. With a minimum follow-up of three years (36.1 months), the dual immunotherapy-based combination continued to show sustained improvement in OS, the trial’s primary endpoint, with 27 percent of patients treated with Opdivo plus Yervoy with two cycles of chemotherapy alive compared to 19 percent of patients treated with chemotherapy alone at three years.

The long-term, durable clinical benefit of Opdivo plus Yervoy with two cycles of chemotherapy was observed at three years across patient populations that typically have a poor prognosis, including patients with PD-L1 expression <1% and squamous histology. Among patients with tumor PD-L1 expression <1%, the OS rate was 25 percent for those treated with the dual immunotherapy-based combination versus 15 percent for chemotherapy alone. Among those with squamous histology, the OS rate was 24 percent for patients who received Opdivo plus Yervoy with chemotherapy, compared to 11 percent for those who received chemotherapy alone. In an exploratory analysis, a positive trend for OS benefit was also observed with Opdivo plus Yervoy with chemotherapy among patients with certain tumor mutations, such as STK11.

Also in June, BMS announced five-year results from Part 1 of the Phase III CheckMate -227 trial, which continues to demonstrate long-term, durable survival benefits of first-line treatment with Opdivo plus Yervoy compared to chemotherapy in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, regardless of PD-L1 expression levels.

With a minimum follow-up of over five years (61.3 months), the longest reported for an immunotherapy combination in mNSCLC, in the primary endpoint population of patients with tumor PD-L1 expression ≥1%, the five-year survival rate for Opdivo plus Yervoy was 24 percent, compared to 14 percent for chemotherapy. In an exploratory analysis of patients with PD-L1 expression <1%, almost three times as many patients treated with Opdivo plus Yervoy were alive at five years compared to those treated with chemotherapy (19 percent versus 7 percent).

Among those who responded to treatment, more patients who received Opdivo plus Yervoy remained in response versus chemotherapy at five years (after being off treatment for more than three years, which ended at a maximum of two years for immunotherapy according to the trial protocol) in both the PD-L1 ≥1% (28 percent versus 3 percent, respectively) and <1% (21 percent versus 0 percent, respectively) subgroups. Among patients treated with Opdivo plus Yervoy who were alive at five years, about two-thirds (66 percent of patients with PD-L1 expression ≥1% and 64 percent of patients with PD-L1 expression <1%) did not receive any subsequent therapy for more than three years after stopping treatment.

In July, BMS announced that Part A of the Phase III CheckMate -914 trial, evaluating Opdivo plus Yervoy as an adjuvant treatment for patients with localized renal cell carcinoma who have undergone full or partial removal of the kidney and who are at moderate or high risk of relapse, did not meet the primary endpoint of disease-free survival as assessed by Blinded Independent Central Review.

The multiple myeloma product Pomalyst generated $3.33 billion in sales for BMS in 2021, an improvement of 8.5 percent compared with the previous year. Company leaders say this was due to higher average net selling prices and higher demand. In the first half of 2022, sales of Pomalyst rose another 6.6 percent to $1.73 billion.

The autoimmune drug Orencia brought in $3.31 billion in sales in 2021, up 4.7 percent for the year. BMS leaders say this was due to higher demand domestically, offset somewhat by lower demand internationally. In the first half of 2022 Orencia sales rose another 6.1 percent to $1.67 billion. 

In June, BMS announced topline results from the Phase III Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV-1) Immune Modulators clinical trial, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. The study evaluated the safety and efficacy of a single dose of immune modulators, including Orencia IV (10 mg/kg) versus placebo when given with standard of care to determine if modulating the immune system’s response could speed recovery and reduce death in adults hospitalized with moderate to severe COVID-19.

Treatment with Orencia versus placebo displayed a strong but not statistically significant improvement in the primary endpoint of time to recovery as measured by day of hospital discharge. Analyses of the secondary endpoints, which included mortality and clinical status, demonstrated Orencia reduced participants’ risk of death and improved their clinical status at 28 days after entering the study when compared with placebo. The risk of death was lower for participants who received Orencia at 11 percent, versus 15 percent for those who received placebo, and the odds of dying were 37.4 percent lower. The relative improvement in mortality was similar in both moderately and severely ill participants. People in the Orencia group had 34.2 percent better odds of clinical improvement than those in the placebo group.

Sprycel, for chronic myeloid leukemia, produced $2.12 billion in sales in 2021, a decline of 1.1 percent. According to company leaders, this was due to increased generic competition in certain indications internationally and lower average net selling prices. In the first half of 2022, sales of Sprycel edged back up by 1.6 percent to $1.03 billion. 

The oncologic Yervoy enjoyed an impressive sales bounce of 31.2 percent to $2.21 billion in 2021. Domestic growth came due to higher demand primarily from the Opdivo+Yervoy combination for NSCLC and higher average net selling prices, while international growth was due to higher demand. First-half 2022 sales of Yervoy rose another 7.7 percent to $1.04 billion. 

Reblozyl, Bristol Myers Squibb

Reblozyl sales more than doubled to $551 million in 2021 and rose by more than a third in the first half of 2022 to $328 million.

Sales of the anemia treatment Reblozyl more than doubled in 2021, from $274 million to $551 million. Company leaders said this was due to higher demand after a new MDS indication approval from the FDA in April 2020. In the first half of 2022, sales of Reblozyl rose another 36.7 percent to $328 million. 

In June, BMS withdrew a supplemental biologics license application for Reblozyl for the treatment of anemia in adults with non-transfusion dependent beta thalassemia. The company could not appropriately address the FDA’s questions about the benefit-risk profile of Reblozyl in this patient population based on the current dataset from the Phase II BEYOND trial. Reblozyl is approved in the United States for anemia in adult patients with beta thalassemia who require regular red blood cell transfusions, and anemia failing an erythropoiesis stimulating agent and requiring 2 or more red blood cell units over 8 weeks in adult patients with very low- to intermediate-risk myelodysplastic syndrome with ring sideroblasts or with myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm with ring sideroblasts and thrombocytosis.

In the pipeline

In February, BMS announced interim results from the True North open-label extension study evaluating the long-term efficacy and safety profile of Zeposia in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. Findings show that the percentage of patients achieving clinical remission, clinical response, endoscopic improvement and corticosteroid-free remission was maintained through Week 142.

In the True North extension study, data from an interim analysis of patients who had previously participated in the Phase III True North Zeposia clinical trial were examined. At Weeks 46, 94 and 142, 45 percent, 51 percent, and 45 percent of participants, respectively, were in clinical remission, and 80 percent, 84 percent, and 86 percent achieved clinical response, respectively. The efficacy of Zeposia in those who entered the long-term study as responders on Day 1 was higher compared to the total population, with 70 percent and 69 percent achieving clinical remission at Weeks 46 and 94, respectively, and 95 percent and 98 percent achieving clinical response at Weeks 46 and 94, respectively. At the time of this analysis, of the 823 patients from the Phase III True North trial who entered the open-label extension study, 64 percent subsequently completed Week 46, 34 percent completed Week 94, and 14 percent completed Week 142.

In March, FDA approved Opdualag, a first-in-class, fixed-dose combination of nivolumab (Opdivo) and relatlimab, administered as a single intravenous infusion for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients 12 years of age or older with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. The approval was based on the Phase II/III RELATIVITY-047 trial, which compared Opdualag to nivolumab alone. The trial met its primary endpoint, PFS, and Opdualag more than doubled the median PFS when compared to nivolumab monotherapy, 10.1 months versus 4.6 months. 

In April, the FDA approved Camzyos for the treatment of adults with symptomatic New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-III obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (obstructive HCM) to improve functional capacity and symptoms. Camzyos is the first and only FDA-approved allosteric and reversible inhibitor selective for cardiac myosin that targets the underlying pathophysiology of obstructive HCM.

This approval was based on data from the Phase III EXPLORER-HCM trial. At baseline, about 73 percent of the randomized patients were NYHA class II and 27 percent were NYHA class III. The mean LVEF was 74 percent, and the mean Valsalva left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) gradient was 73 mmHg. The baseline mean Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionaire-23 (KCCQ-23) Clinical Summary Score (CSS) was 71. At Week 30, 37 percent of patients taking Camzyos achieved the composite primary endpoint, defined as the proportion of patients who achieved either improvement of mixed venous oxygen tension by ≥1.5 mL/kg/min plus improvement in NYHA class by at least 1 or improvement of pVO2 by ≥3.0 mL/kg/min plus no worsening in NYHA class, versus 17 percent treated with placebo. The difference was 19 percent. Additionally at Week 30, patients receiving Camzyos had greater improvement compared to placebo group across all secondary endpoints.

In May, BMS announced two-year results from the POETYK PSO long-term extension trial demonstrating durable efficacy and a consistent safety profile with deucravacitinib treatment in adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Clinical efficacy was maintained through up to two years of deucravacitinib treatment, with response rates at Week 60 in the LTE of 77.7 percent and 58.7 percent for Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 and static Physicians Global Assessment (sPGA) 0/1 (clear/almost clear skin), respectively.

In June, the FDA approved Breyanzi, a CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy, for the treatment of adult patients with large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL), including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) not otherwise specified (including DLBCL arising from indolent lymphoma), high-grade B-cell lymphoma, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, and follicular lymphoma grade 3B, who have refractory disease to first-line chemoimmunotherapy or relapse within 12 months of first-line chemoimmunotherapy; or refractory disease to first-line chemoimmunotherapy or relapse after first-line chemoimmunotherapy and are not eligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) due to comorbidities or age. With these two new indications, Breyanzi now has the broadest patient eligibility of any CAR T cell therapy in relapsed or refractory LBCL.

The approval of the expanded indications for Breyanzi was based on results from the pivotal Phase III TRANSFORM study in which adults with LBCL that was primary refractory or relapsed within 12 months of front-line therapy were randomized to receive Breyanzi or standard therapy consisting of salvage immunochemotherapy, and if responsive, high-dose chemotherapy and HSCT. The trial included patients with diverse histologic subtypes and high-risk features, and offered a patient-centric design, allowing for bridging immunochemotherapy in the Breyanzi arm for disease control, which reflects real-world clinical practice and allowed for inclusion of patients with more aggressive and fast-progressing disease. Due to the high rate of patients whose disease does not respond to salvage immunochemotherapy, the trial also allowed for crossover from the standard therapy arm to the Breyanzi arm if patients did not derive a response after three cycles of salvage chemotherapy or had disease progression at any time.

Results from the TRANSFORM study showed that Breyanzi more than quadrupled median EFS compared to standard therapy (10.1 months versus 2.3 months). The majority of patients achieved a CR with Breyanzi compared to less than half with standard therapy (66 percent versus 39 percent), with median duration of CR not reached in the Breyanzi arm. Results also showed Breyanzi more than doubled PFS versus standard therapy (median PFS: 14.8 months versus 5.7 months). In the study, nearly all patients (97 percent) in the Breyanzi arm received treatment versus less than half (47 percent) of patients who completed high-dose chemotherapy and autologous HSCT in the standard therapy arm.

The efficacy of Breyanzi in the second-line setting was also based on data from the Phase II PILOT study, in which 61 adults with primary refractory or relapsed LBCL who were not considered candidates for stem cell transplant were treated with Breyanzi. The PILOT study enrolled a broad patient population based on age, performance status and/or organ function and comorbidities, and regardless of time to relapse following first-line treatment. Breyanzi showed deep and durable responses, with an overall response rate of 80 percent, the study’s primary endpoint, and a CR rate of 54 percent, with median time to CR of one month (range: 0.8 – 6.9 months). Median duration of response was 11.2 months, with the median duration of response not reached for those patients who achieved a CR.

Also in June, BMS announced new post-hoc analyses from the Zeposia Phase III DAYBREAK open-label extension (OLE) and Phase III SUNBEAM trials, showing early Zeposia use demonstrated cognitive benefits in people with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS), with the greatest effect seen in people with high thalamic volume (TV), supporting an association between preserved brain volume (BV) and improved long-term cognitive outcomes. FDA approved Zeposia for the treatment of adults with relapsing forms of MS in March 2020 and for adults with moderately to severely active UC in May 2021.

In these new exploratory analyses, Zeposia treatment showed improved or preserved cognitive function in a majority of patients, with the greatest improvement seen when used early in the disease when TV remains high, supporting a positive association between preserved BV and long-term cognitive performance. Findings from the new research showed that people with high versus low BV, particularly TV, had higher cognitive performance, as assessed by the symbol digit modalities test (SDMT) score, at baseline. This trend remained stable or improved over 4-5 years of Zeposia treatment, leading to improved or preserved cognitive function in almost 80 percent of people with high TV (SDMT improved: 45.1 percent; SDMT preserved: 34.4 percent) and about 66 percent of people with low BV (SDMT improved: 35.6 percent; SDMT preserved: 30.7 percent) at Month 48 of the Phase 3 DAYBREAK OLE study.

Also in June, BMS announced positive results from the Phase II PAISLEY study evaluating deucravacitinib compared to placebo in patients with moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The study met the primary endpoint of achieving SLE Responder Index-4 (SRI(4)) responses, a composite endpoint used in SLE clinical trials to assess disease activity, at Week 32. A significantly greater proportion of patients on deucravacitinib 3 mg twice daily (BID) and 6 mg BID achieved SRI(4) at 32 weeks versus placebo (deucravacitinib 3 mg BID: 58.2 percent; deucravacitinib 6 mg BID: 49.5 percent; placebo: 34.4 percent). While the 12 mg once daily (QD) group had numerically higher SRI(4) responses relative to placebo at 32 weeks, the results did not reach statistical significance on multiplicity adjustment. SRI(4) responses were sustained across all deucravacitinib groups up to Week 48. Based on these results, BMS executives announced their intention to move deucravacitinib into Phase III studies systemic lupus erythematosus.

In August, BMS and 2seventy bio Inc. announced positive top-line results from KarMMa-3, a Phase III global, randomized, multicenter, open-label study evaluating Abecma compared to standard combination regimens in adults with multiple myeloma that is relapsed and refractory after two to four prior lines of therapy and refractory to the last regimen. KarMMa-3 is the first randomized clinical trial to evaluate a CAR T cell therapy in multiple myeloma. Results of a pre-specified interim analysis conducted through an independent review committee showed that KarMMa-3 met its primary endpoint of demonstrating a statistically significant improvement in PFS. Treatment with Abecma also showed an improvement in the key secondary endpoint of overall response rate compared to standard regimens. Follow-up for overall survival, a key secondary endpoint, remains ongoing. 

Abecma was approved by FDA in March 2021 for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma after four or more prior lines of therapy, including an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

Also in August, BMS and Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. announced results from the Phase II AXIOMATIC-SSP dose-ranging study of the investigational oral factor XIa (FXIa) inhibitor milvexian, which showed an approximate 30 percent relative risk reduction in recurrent symptomatic ischemic strokes and favorable safety profile in three arms compared to placebo when used in combination with background antiplatelet therapy in patients with an acute non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. There was no increase in severe bleeding versus placebo, and there was no fatal bleeding in any arm of the study, even with all patients on background dual antiplatelet therapy for 21 days followed by single antiplatelet therapy for the duration of the trial. The rate of major bleeding for milvexian 25 mg once daily and twice daily doses was similar to placebo, while a numerical increase was observed in milvexian dose arms of 50 mg twice daily and above, with no dose-response. Company executives expect to initiate a Phase III program later this year. 

Read More

Continue Reading


‘I couldn’t stand the pain’: the Turkish holiday resort that’s become an emergency dental centre for Britons who can’t get treated at home

The crisis in NHS dentistry is driving increasing numbers abroad for treatment. Here are some of their stories.

This clinic in the Turkish resort of Antalya is the official 'dental sponsor' of the Miss England competition. Diana Ibanez-Tirado, Author provided

It’s a hot summer day in the Turkish city of Antalya, a Mediterranean resort with golden beaches, deep blue sea and vibrant nightlife. The pool area of the all-inclusive resort is crammed with British people on sun loungers – but they aren’t here for a holiday. This hotel is linked to a dental clinic that organises treatment packages, and most of these guests are here to see a dentist.

From Norwich, two women talk about gums and injections. A man from Wales holds a tissue close to his mouth and spits blood – he has just had two molars extracted.

The dental clinic organises everything for these dental “tourists” throughout their treatment, which typically lasts from three to 15 days. The stories I hear of what has caused them to travel to Turkey are strikingly similar: all have struggled to secure dental treatment at home on the NHS.

“The hotel is nice and some days I go to the beach,” says Susan*, a hairdresser in her mid-30s from Norwich. “But really, we aren’t tourists like in a proper holiday. We come here because we have no choice. I couldn’t stand the pain.”

Seaside beach resort with mountains in the distance
The Turkish Mediterranean resort of Antalya. Akimov Konstantin/Shutterstock

This is Susan’s second visit to Antalya. She explains that her ordeal started two years earlier:

I went to an NHS dentist who told me I had gum disease … She did some cleaning to my teeth and gums but it got worse. When I ate, my teeth were moving … the gums were bleeding and it was very painful. I called to say I was in pain but the clinic was not accepting NHS patients any more.

The only option the dentist offered Susan was to register as a private patient:

I asked how much. They said £50 for x-rays and then if the gum disease got worse, £300 or so for extraction. Four of them were moving – imagine: £1,200 for losing your teeth! Without teeth I’d lose my clients, but I didn’t have the money. I’m a single mum. I called my mum and cried.

Susan’s mother told her about a friend of hers who had been to Turkey for treatment, then together they found a suitable clinic:

The prices are so much cheaper! Tooth extraction, x-rays, consultations – it all comes included. The flight and hotel for seven days cost the same as losing four teeth in Norwich … I had my lower teeth removed here six months ago, now I’ve got implants … £2,800 for everything – hotel, transfer, treatments. I only paid the flights separately.

In the UK, roughly half the adult population suffers from periodontitis – inflammation of the gums caused by plaque bacteria that can lead to irreversible loss of gums, teeth, and bone. Regular reviews by a dentist or hygienist are required to manage this condition. But nine out of ten dental practices cannot offer NHS appointments to new adult patients, while eight in ten are not accepting new child patients.

Some UK dentists argue that Britons who travel abroad for treatment do so mainly for cosmetic procedures. They warn that dental tourism is dangerous, and that if their treatment goes wrong, dentists in the UK will be unable to help because they don’t want to be responsible for further damage. Susan shrugs this off:

Dentists in England say: ‘If you go to Turkey, we won’t touch you [afterwards].’ But I don’t worry because there are no appointments at home anyway. They couldn’t help in the first place, and this is why we are in Turkey.

‘How can we pay all this money?’

As a social anthropologist, I travelled to Turkey a number of times in 2023 to investigate the crisis of NHS dentistry, and the journeys abroad that UK patients are increasingly making as a result. I have relatives in Istanbul and have been researching migration and trading patterns in Turkey’s largest city since 2016.

In August 2023, I visited the resort in Antalya, nearly 400 miles south of Istanbul. As well as Susan, I met a group from a village in Wales who said there was no provision of NHS dentistry back home. They had organised a two-week trip to Turkey: the 12-strong group included a middle-aged couple with two sons in their early 20s, and two couples who were pensioners. By going together, Anya tells me, they could support each other through their different treatments:

I’ve had many cavities since I was little … Before, you could see a dentist regularly – you didn’t even think about it. If you had pain or wanted a regular visit, you phoned and you went … That was in the 1990s, when I went to the dentist maybe every year.

Anya says that once she had children, her family and work commitments meant she had no time to go to the dentist. Then, years later, she started having serious toothache:

Every time I chewed something, it hurt. I ate soups and soft food, and I also lost weight … Even drinking was painful – tea: pain, cold water: pain. I was taking paracetamol all the time! I went to the dentist to fix all this, but there were no appointments.

Anya was told she would have to wait months, or find a dentist elsewhere:

A private clinic gave me a list of things I needed done. Oh my God, almost £6,000. My husband went too – same story. How can we pay all this money? So we decided to come to Turkey. Some people we know had been here, and others in the village wanted to come too. We’ve brought our sons too – they also need to be checked and fixed. Our whole family could be fixed for less than £6,000.

By the time they travelled, Anya’s dental problems had turned into a dental emergency. She says she could not live with the pain anymore, and was relying on paracetamol.

In 2023, about 6 million adults in the UK experienced protracted pain (lasting more than two weeks) caused by toothache. Unintentional paracetamol overdose due to dental pain is a significant cause of admissions to acute medical units. If left untreated, tooth infections can spread to other parts of the body and cause life-threatening complications – and on rare occasions, death.

In February 2024, police were called to manage hundreds of people queuing outside a newly opened dental clinic in Bristol, all hoping to be registered or seen by an NHS dentist. One in ten Britons have admitted to performing “DIY dentistry”, of which 20% did so because they could not find a timely appointment. This includes people pulling out their teeth with pliers and using superglue to repair their teeth.

In the 1990s, dentistry was almost entirely provided through NHS services, with only around 500 solely private dentists registered. Today, NHS dentist numbers in England are at their lowest level in a decade, with 23,577 dentists registered to perform NHS work in 2022-23, down 695 on the previous year. Furthermore, the precise division of NHS and private work that each dentist provides is not measured.

The COVID pandemic created longer waiting lists for NHS treatment in an already stretched public service. In Bridlington, Yorkshire, people are now reportedly having to wait eight-to-nine years to get an NHS dental appointment with the only remaining NHS dentist in the town.

In his book Patients of the State (2012), Argentine sociologist Javier Auyero describes the “indignities of waiting”. It is the poor who are mostly forced to wait, he writes. Queues for state benefits and public services constitute a tangible form of power over the marginalised. There is an ethnic dimension to this story, too. Data suggests that in the UK, patients less likely to be effective in booking an NHS dental appointment are non-white ethnic groups and Gypsy or Irish travellers, and that it is particularly challenging for refugees and asylum-seekers to access dental care.

This article is part of Conversation Insights
The Insights team generates long-form journalism derived from interdisciplinary research. The team is working with academics from different backgrounds who have been engaged in projects aimed at tackling societal and scientific challenges.

In 2022, I experienced my own dental emergency. An infected tooth was causing me debilitating pain, and needed root canal treatment. I was advised this would cost £71 on the NHS, plus £307 for a follow-up crown – but that I would have to wait months for an appointment. The pain became excruciating – I could not sleep, let alone wait for months. In the same clinic, privately, I was quoted £1,300 for the treatment (more than half my monthly income at the time), or £295 for a tooth extraction.

I did not want to lose my tooth because of lack of money. So I bought a flight to Istanbul immediately for the price of the extraction in the UK, and my tooth was treated with root canal therapy by a private dentist there for £80. Including the costs of travelling, the total was a third of what I was quoted to be treated privately in the UK. Two years on, my treated tooth hasn’t given me any more problems.

A better quality of life

Not everyone is in Antalya for emergency procedures. The pensioners from Wales had contacted numerous clinics they found on the internet, comparing prices, treatments and hotel packages at least a year in advance, in a carefully planned trip to get dental implants – artificial replacements for tooth roots that help support dentures, crowns and bridges.

Street view of a dental clinic in Antalya, Turkey
Dental clinic in Antalya, Turkey. Diana Ibanez-Tirado, CC BY-NC-ND

In Turkey, all the dentists I speak to (most of whom cater mainly for foreigners, including UK nationals) consider implants not a cosmetic or luxurious treatment, but a development in dentistry that gives patients who are able to have the procedure a much better quality of life. This procedure is not available on the NHS for most of the UK population, and the patients I meet in Turkey could not afford implants in private clinics back home.

Paul is in Antalya to replace his dentures, which have become uncomfortable and irritating to his gums, with implants. He says he couldn’t find an appointment to see an NHS dentist. His wife Sonia went through a similar procedure the year before and is very satisfied with the results, telling me: “Why have dentures that you need to put in a glass overnight, in the old style? If you can have implants, I say, you’re better off having them.”

Most of the dental tourists I meet in Antalya are white British: this city, known as the Turkish Riviera, has developed an entire economy catering to English-speaking tourists. In 2023, more than 1.3 million people visited the city from the UK, up almost 15% on the previous year.

Read more: NHS dentistry is in crisis – are overseas dentists the answer?

In contrast, the Britons I meet in Istanbul are predominantly from a non-white ethnic background. Omar, a pensioner of Pakistani origin in his early 70s, has come here after waiting “half a year” for an NHS appointment to fix the dental bridge that is causing him pain. Omar’s son had been previously for a hair transplant, and was offered a free dental checkup by the same clinic, so he suggested it to his father. Having worked as a driver for a manufacturing company for two decades in Birmingham, Omar says he feels disappointed to have contributed to the British economy for so long, only to be “let down” by the NHS:

At home, I must wait and wait and wait to get a bridge – and then I had many problems with it. I couldn’t eat because the bridge was uncomfortable and I was in pain, but there were no appointments on the NHS. I asked a private dentist and they recommended implants, but they are far too expensive [in the UK]. I started losing weight, which is not a bad thing at the beginning, but then I was worrying because I couldn’t chew and eat well and was losing more weight … Here in Istanbul, I got dental implants – US$500 each, problem solved! In England, each implant is maybe £2,000 or £3,000.

In the waiting area of another clinic in Istanbul, I meet Mariam, a British woman of Iraqi background in her late 40s, who is making her second visit to the dentist here. Initially, she needed root canal therapy after experiencing severe pain for weeks. Having been quoted £1,200 in a private clinic in outer London, Mariam decided to fly to Istanbul instead, where she was quoted £150 by a dentist she knew through her large family. Even considering the cost of the flight, Mariam says the decision was obvious:

Dentists in England are so expensive and NHS appointments so difficult to find. It’s awful there, isn’t it? Dentists there blamed me for my rotten teeth. They say it’s my fault: I don’t clean or I ate sugar, or this or that. I grew up in a village in Iraq and didn’t go to the dentist – we were very poor. Then we left because of war, so we didn’t go to a dentist … When I arrived in London more than 20 years ago, I didn’t speak English, so I still didn’t go to the dentist … I think when you move from one place to another, you don’t go to the dentist unless you are in real, real pain.

In Istanbul, Mariam has opted not only for the urgent root canal treatment but also a longer and more complex treatment suggested by her consultant, who she says is a renowned doctor from Syria. This will include several extractions and implants of back and front teeth, and when I ask what she thinks of achieving a “Hollywood smile”, Mariam says:

Who doesn’t want a nice smile? I didn’t come here to be a model. I came because I was in pain, but I know this doctor is the best for implants, and my front teeth were rotten anyway.

Dentists in the UK warn about the risks of “overtreatment” abroad, but Mariam appears confident that this is her opportunity to solve all her oral health problems. Two of her sisters have already been through a similar treatment, so they all trust this doctor.

Alt text
An Istanbul clinic founded by Afghan dentists has a message for its UK customers. Diana Ibanez-Tirado, CC BY-NC-ND

The UK’s ‘dental deserts’

To get a fuller understanding of the NHS dental crisis, I’ve also conducted 20 interviews in the UK with people who have travelled or were considering travelling abroad for dental treatment.

Joan, a 50-year-old woman from Exeter, tells me she considered going to Turkey and could have afforded it, but that her back and knee problems meant she could not brave the trip. She has lost all her lower front teeth due to gum disease and, when I meet her, has been waiting 13 months for an NHS dental appointment. Joan tells me she is living in “shame”, unable to smile.

In the UK, areas with extremely limited provision of NHS dental services – known as as “dental deserts” – include densely populated urban areas such as Portsmouth and Greater Manchester, as well as many rural and coastal areas.

In Felixstowe, the last dentist taking NHS patients went private in 2023, despite the efforts of the activist group Toothless in Suffolk to secure better access to NHS dentists in the area. It’s a similar story in Ripon, Yorkshire, and in Dumfries & Galloway, Scotland, where nearly 25,000 patients have been de-registered from NHS dentists since 2021.

Data shows that 2 million adults must travel at least 40 miles within the UK to access dental care. Branding travel for dental care as “tourism” carries the risk of disguising the elements of duress under which patients move to restore their oral health – nationally and internationally. It also hides the immobility of those who cannot undertake such journeys.

The 90-year-old woman in Dumfries & Galloway who now faces travelling for hours by bus to see an NHS dentist can hardly be considered “tourism” – nor the Ukrainian war refugees who travelled back from West Sussex and Norwich to Ukraine, rather than face the long wait to see an NHS dentist.

Many people I have spoken to cannot afford the cost of transport to attend dental appointments two hours away – or they have care responsibilities that make it impossible. Instead, they are forced to wait in pain, in the hope of one day securing an appointment closer to home.

Billboard advertising a dental clinic in Turkey
Dental clinics have mushroomed in recent years in Turkey, thanks to the influx of foreign patients seeking a wide range of treatments. Diana Ibanez-Tirado, CC BY-NC-ND

‘Your crisis is our business’

The indignities of waiting in the UK are having a big impact on the lives of some local and foreign dentists in Turkey. Some neighbourhoods are rapidly changing as dental and other health clinics, usually in luxurious multi-storey glass buildings, mushroom. In the office of one large Istanbul medical complex with sections for hair transplants and dentistry (plus one linked to a hospital for more extensive cosmetic surgery), its Turkish owner and main investor tells me:

Your crisis is our business, but this is a bazaar. There are good clinics and bad clinics, and unfortunately sometimes foreign patients do not know which one to choose. But for us, the business is very good.

This clinic only caters to foreign patients. The owner, an architect by profession who also developed medical clinics in Brazil, describes how COVID had a major impact on his business:

When in Europe you had COVID lockdowns, Turkey allowed foreigners to come. Many people came for ‘medical tourism’ – we had many patients for cosmetic surgery and hair transplants. And that was when the dental business started, because our patients couldn’t see a dentist in Germany or England. Then more and more patients started to come for dental treatments, especially from the UK and Ireland. For them, it’s very, very cheap here.

The reasons include the value of the Turkish lira relative to the British pound, the low cost of labour, the increasing competition among Turkish clinics, and the sheer motivation of dentists here. While most dentists catering to foreign patients are from Turkey, others have arrived seeking refuge from war and violence in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and beyond. They work diligently to rebuild their lives, careers and lost wealth.

Regardless of their origin, all dentists in Turkey must be registered and certified. Hamed, a Syrian dentist and co-owner of a new clinic in Istanbul catering to European and North American patients, tells me:

I know that you say ‘Syrian’ and people think ‘migrant’, ‘refugee’, and maybe think ‘how can this dentist be good?’ – but Syria, before the war, had very good doctors and dentists. Many of us came to Turkey and now I have a Turkish passport. I had to pass the exams to practise dentistry here – I study hard. The exams are in Turkish and they are difficult, so you cannot say that Syrian doctors are stupid.

Hamed talks excitedly about the latest technology that is coming to his profession: “There are always new materials and techniques, and we cannot stop learning.” He is about to travel to Paris to an international conference:

I can say my techniques are very advanced … I bet I put more implants and do more bone grafting and surgeries every week than any dentist you know in England. A good dentist is about practice and hand skills and experience. I work hard, very hard, because more and more patients are arriving to my clinic, because in England they don’t find dentists.

Dental equipment in a Turkish treatment room
Dentists in Turkey boast of using the latest technology. Diana Ibanez-Tirado, CC BY-NC-ND

While there is no official data about the number of people travelling from the UK to Turkey for dental treatment, investors and dentists I speak to consider that numbers are rocketing. From all over the world, Turkey received 1.2 million visitors for “medical tourism” in 2022, an increase of 308% on the previous year. Of these, about 250,000 patients went for dentistry. One of the most renowned dental clinics in Istanbul had only 15 British patients in 2019, but that number increased to 2,200 in 2023 and is expected to reach 5,500 in 2024.

Like all forms of medical care, dental treatments carry risks. Most clinics in Turkey offer a ten-year guarantee for treatments and a printed clinical history of procedures carried out, so patients can show this to their local dentists and continue their regular annual care in the UK. Dental treatments, checkups and maintaining a good oral health is a life-time process, not a one-off event.

Many UK patients, however, are caught between a rock and a hard place – criticised for going abroad, yet unable to get affordable dental care in the UK before and after their return. The British Dental Association has called for more action to inform these patients about the risks of getting treated overseas – and has warned UK dentists about the legal implications of treating these patients on their return. But this does not address the difficulties faced by British patients who are being forced to go abroad in search of affordable, often urgent dental care.

A global emergency

The World Health Organization states that the explosion of oral disease around the world is a result of the “negligent attitude” that governments, policymakers and insurance companies have towards including oral healthcare under the umbrella of universal healthcare. It as if the health of our teeth and mouth is optional; somehow less important than treatment to the rest of our body. Yet complications from untreated tooth decay can lead to hospitalisation.

The main causes of oral health diseases are untreated tooth decay, severe gum disease, toothlessness, and cancers of the lip and oral cavity. Cases grew during the pandemic, when little or no attention was paid to oral health. Meanwhile, the global cosmetic dentistry market is predicted to continue growing at an annual rate of 13% for the rest of this decade, confirming the strong relationship between socioeconomic status and access to oral healthcare.

In the UK since 2018, there have been more than 218,000 admissions to hospital for rotting teeth, of which more than 100,000 were children. Some 40% of children in the UK have not seen a dentist in the past 12 months. The role of dentists in prevention of tooth decay and its complications, and in the early detection of mouth cancer, is vital. While there is a 90% survival rate for mouth cancer if spotted early, the lack of access to dental appointments is causing cases to go undetected.

The reasons for the crisis in NHS dentistry are complex, but include: the real-term cuts in funding to NHS dentistry; the challenges of recruitment and retention of dentists in rural and coastal areas; pay inequalities facing dental nurses, most of them women, who are being badly hit by the cost of living crisis; and, in England, the 2006 Dental Contract that does not remunerate dentists in a way that encourages them to continue seeing NHS patients.

The UK is suffering a mass exodus of the public dentistry workforce, with workers leaving the profession entirely or shifting to the private sector, where payments and life-work balance are better, bureaucracy is reduced, and prospects for career development look much better. A survey of general dental practitioners found that around half have reduced their NHS work since the pandemic – with 43% saying they were likely to go fully private, and 42% considering a career change or taking early retirement.

Reversing the UK’s dental crisis requires more commitment to substantial reform and funding than the “recovery plan” announced by Victoria Atkins, the secretary of state for health and social care, on February 7.

The stories I have gathered show that people travelling abroad for dental treatment don’t see themselves as “tourists” or vanity-driven consumers of the “Hollywood smile”. Rather, they have been forced by the crisis in NHS dentistry to seek out a service 1,500 miles away in Turkey that should be a basic, affordable right for all, on their own doorstep.

*Names in this article have been changed to protect the anonymity of the interviewees.

For you: more from our Insights series:

To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.

Diana Ibanez Tirado receives funding from the School of Global Studies, University of Sussex.

Read More

Continue Reading


Beloved mall retailer files Chapter 7 bankruptcy, will liquidate

The struggling chain has given up the fight and will close hundreds of stores around the world.



It has been a brutal period for several popular retailers. The fallout from the covid pandemic and a challenging economic environment have pushed numerous chains into bankruptcy with Tuesday Morning, Christmas Tree Shops, and Bed Bath & Beyond all moving from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation.

In all three of those cases, the companies faced clear financial pressures that led to inventory problems and vendors demanding faster, or even upfront payment. That creates a sort of inevitability.

Related: Beloved retailer finds life after bankruptcy, new famous owner

When a retailer faces financial pressure it sets off a cycle where vendors become wary of selling them items. That leads to barren shelves and no ability for the chain to sell its way out of its financial problems. 

Once that happens bankruptcy generally becomes the only option. Sometimes that means a Chapter 11 filing which gives the company a chance to negotiate with its creditors. In some cases, deals can be worked out where vendors extend longer terms or even forgive some debts, and banks offer an extension of loan terms.

In other cases, new funding can be secured which assuages vendor concerns or the company might be taken over by its vendors. Sometimes, as was the case with David's Bridal, a new owner steps in, adds new money, and makes deals with creditors in order to give the company a new lease on life.

It's rare that a retailer moves directly into Chapter 7 bankruptcy and decides to liquidate without trying to find a new source of funding.

Mall traffic has varied depending upon the type of mall.

Image source&colon; Getty Images

The Body Shop has bad news for customers  

The Body Shop has been in a very public fight for survival. Fears began when the company closed half of its locations in the United Kingdom. That was followed by a bankruptcy-style filing in Canada and an abrupt closure of its U.S. stores on March 4.

"The Canadian subsidiary of the global beauty and cosmetics brand announced it has started restructuring proceedings by filing a Notice of Intention (NOI) to Make a Proposal pursuant to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada). In the same release, the company said that, as of March 1, 2024, The Body Shop US Limited has ceased operations," Chain Store Age reported.

A message on the company's U.S. website shared a simple message that does not appear to be the entire story.

"We're currently undergoing planned maintenance, but don't worry we're due to be back online soon."

That same message is still on the company's website, but a new filing makes it clear that the site is not down for maintenance, it's down for good.

The Body Shop files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy

While the future appeared bleak for The Body Shop, fans of the brand held out hope that a savior would step in. That's not going to be the case. 

The Body Shop filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the United States.

"The US arm of the ethical cosmetics group has ceased trading at its 50 outlets. On Saturday (March 9), it filed for Chapter 7 insolvency, under which assets are sold off to clear debts, putting about 400 jobs at risk including those in a distribution center that still holds millions of dollars worth of stock," The Guardian reported.

After its closure in the United States, the survival of the brand remains very much in doubt. About half of the chain's stores in the United Kingdom remain open along with its Australian stores. 

The future of those stores remains very much in doubt and the chain has shared that it needs new funding in order for them to continue operating.

The Body Shop did not respond to a request for comment from TheStreet.   

Read More

Continue Reading


Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super…



Are Voters Recoiling Against Disorder?

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The headlines coming out of the Super Tuesday primaries have got it right. Barring cataclysmic changes, Donald Trump and Joe Biden will be the Republican and Democratic nominees for president in 2024.

(Left) President Joe Biden delivers remarks on canceling student debt at Culver City Julian Dixon Library in Culver City, Calif., on Feb. 21, 2024. (Right) Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump stands on stage during a campaign event at Big League Dreams Las Vegas in Las Vegas, Nev., on Jan. 27, 2024. (Mario Tama/Getty Images; David Becker/Getty Images)

With Nikki Haley’s withdrawal, there will be no more significantly contested primaries or caucuses—the earliest both parties’ races have been over since something like the current primary-dominated system was put in place in 1972.

The primary results have spotlighted some of both nominees’ weaknesses.

Donald Trump lost high-income, high-educated constituencies, including the entire metro area—aka the Swamp. Many but by no means all Haley votes there were cast by Biden Democrats. Mr. Trump can’t afford to lose too many of the others in target states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Majorities and large minorities of voters in overwhelmingly Latino counties in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley and some in Houston voted against Joe Biden, and even more against Senate nominee Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas).

Returns from Hispanic precincts in New Hampshire and Massachusetts show the same thing. Mr. Biden can’t afford to lose too many Latino votes in target states like Arizona and Georgia.

When Mr. Trump rode down that escalator in 2015, commentators assumed he’d repel Latinos. Instead, Latino voters nationally, and especially the closest eyewitnesses of Biden’s open-border policy, have been trending heavily Republican.

High-income liberal Democrats may sport lawn signs proclaiming, “In this house, we believe ... no human is illegal.” The logical consequence of that belief is an open border. But modest-income folks in border counties know that flows of illegal immigrants result in disorder, disease, and crime.

There is plenty of impatience with increased disorder in election returns below the presidential level. Consider Los Angeles County, America’s largest county, with nearly 10 million people, more people than 40 of the 50 states. It voted 71 percent for Mr. Biden in 2020.

Current returns show county District Attorney George Gascon winning only 21 percent of the vote in the nonpartisan primary. He’ll apparently face Republican Nathan Hochman, a critic of his liberal policies, in November.

Gascon, elected after the May 2020 death of counterfeit-passing suspect George Floyd in Minneapolis, is one of many county prosecutors supported by billionaire George Soros. His policies include not charging juveniles as adults, not seeking higher penalties for gang membership or use of firearms, and bringing fewer misdemeanor cases.

The predictable result has been increased car thefts, burglaries, and personal robberies. Some 120 assistant district attorneys have left the office, and there’s a backlog of 10,000 unprosecuted cases.

More than a dozen other Soros-backed and similarly liberal prosecutors have faced strong opposition or have left office.

St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner resigned last May amid lawsuits seeking her removal, Milwaukee’s John Chisholm retired in January, and Baltimore’s Marilyn Mosby was defeated in July 2022 and convicted of perjury in September 2023. Last November, Loudoun County, Virginia, voters (62 percent Biden) ousted liberal Buta Biberaj, who declined to prosecute a transgender student for assault, and in June 2022 voters in San Francisco (85 percent Biden) recalled famed radical Chesa Boudin.

Similarly, this Tuesday, voters in San Francisco passed ballot measures strengthening police powers and requiring treatment of drug-addicted welfare recipients.

In retrospect, it appears the Floyd video, appearing after three months of COVID-19 confinement, sparked a frenzied, even crazed reaction, especially among the highly educated and articulate. One fatal incident was seen as proof that America’s “systemic racism” was worse than ever and that police forces should be defunded and perhaps abolished.

2020 was “the year America went crazy,” I wrote in January 2021, a year in which police funding was actually cut by Democrats in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Denver. A year in which young New York Times (NYT) staffers claimed they were endangered by the publication of Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-Ark.) opinion article advocating calling in military forces if necessary to stop rioting, as had been done in Detroit in 1967 and Los Angeles in 1992. A craven NYT publisher even fired the editorial page editor for running the article.

Evidence of visible and tangible discontent with increasing violence and its consequences—barren and locked shelves in Manhattan chain drugstores, skyrocketing carjackings in Washington, D.C.—is as unmistakable in polls and election results as it is in daily life in large metropolitan areas. Maybe 2024 will turn out to be the year even liberal America stopped acting crazy.

Chaos and disorder work against incumbents, as they did in 1968 when Democrats saw their party’s popular vote fall from 61 percent to 43 percent.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/09/2024 - 23:20

Read More

Continue Reading