Connect with us

Uncategorized

JPM2023: Breakthroughs await, but so do roadblocks

Editor-in-chief Jonah Comstock lays out a few of the most potent threads he heard in the conference centres,
The post JPM2023: Breakthroughs await, but…

Published

on

Editor-in-chief Jonah Comstock lays out a few of the most potent threads he heard in the conference centres, hotel rooms, and rain-soaked Lyfts of San Francisco.

After my customary cross-country redeye, I’ve officially traded the relentless rain of San Francisco for the gentle snowfall of my native Boston. And as I look out the window at that snow, my travel-addled brain can’t help but see it as a metaphor for pharma in 2023: a crisp white, wide canvas laden with possibilities, but also one that’s going to require a lot of immediate, hard work from me if I want to be a responsible homeowner.

Alright, throw me in metaphor jail. I deserve it. But that was the tension at JPM 2023 – a tension between the incredible potential and possibility of new treatment modalities, technologies, and processes, and the incredibly daunting challenge of realising that potential amidst a cooling funding climate, regulatory and payment uncertainty, workforce instability, manufacturing challenges, and more. Just as I can’t have my picturesque New England snowfall without my pain-in-the-neck New England snow shovelling, these opportunities and challenges go hand in hand.

But enough vagaries. Let’s talk trends.

1. Cell and gene therapies – big opportunities, big challenges

This is the area where I think this tension is the most obvious. Everyone agrees that cell and gene therapies are poised for an explosion, with far more drugs in the pipeline than are currently approved, and the FDA predicts it will clear 10 to 20 per year by 2025.

“I’m going to make a statement that could come back and bite me, but I think T-Cell therapies are going to be bigger than monoclonal antibodies,” AdaptImmune CEO Adrian Rawcliffe said at one session.

These therapies have incredible potential to fight cancer and other diseases using the patient’s own immune system. This could mean avoiding the side effects associated with radiation therapies, even targeted ones. The treatments also have the potential for long-term remission. As such, big and small pharma alike are investing in this area and the hype around it at JPM was strong.

But the challenges are also severe. Whether autologous or allogeneic, manufacturing a cell therapy is much more complicated than manufacturing a small molecule. There’s so much precision required, and so much possibility for introducing error at this stage, that even small companies are investing in internal manufacturing operations. And they have to do it early because regulators are just as interested in their chemistry, manufacturing, and control (CMC) as their efficacy data.

And there are big questions about how these therapies will be paid for, particularly those that turn out to be essentially curative in a payment system that’s set up to treat cancer as a chronic disease.

Ultimately, we are going to see these therapies proliferate and the industry figure out how to execute them efficiently. But because of the cost and risk associated with them, they’re likely to be the strongest in areas where no other, more traditional, alternatives exist.

2. The year of neuro

If I had a dollar for every time I heard that the major R&D trend of 2023 was going to be increased interest and investment in central nervous system (CNS) and neurological diseases, I would at least have enough money to replace the multiple umbrellas I lost this week.

But why, exactly, this is the year for neuro and CNS was a question that produced a variety of answers.

For one thing, high-profile approvals of Biogen’s Aduhelm and Eisai’s lecanemab, despite some concerns about side effects and mismanagement, have really planted a flag and demonstrated the potential of both the mechanism of action of targeting amyloid clusters and monoclonal antibodies as a form factor.

Yet another, possibly more interesting, factor has to do with biomarkers. Simply put, for a long time it’s been very hard to identify patients with Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s at a stage where drugs would be useful, and it’s been hard to track and quantify disease progression in a subjective, granular way that would result in useful data.

I did a pretty deep dive into this back in July. While there is still a lot to be done, new biomarkers, lower-cost scanning, and, in the case of Parkinson’s, innovations in sensors and real-world evidence have started to make a difference.

At a Sunday pre-event, Eli Lilly and Company VP for Search and Evaluation for Neuro, Jenny Lair said that just a few years ago Lilly was having problems with people enrolled in trials who were diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, but didn’t actually have it.

“We were trying to remove amyloids from people who didn’t have amyloids,” she said. “So, we’ve come a long way — a better understanding of Alzheimer’s and biomarkers has helped improve accurate recruitment.”

3. Ups and downs of government – IRA

If you’ll forgive a slightly US-centric section, a lot of breath this week was spent griping about the US legislative branch. I’m of course talking about the Inflation Reduction Act, which is, if you believe the hype, poised to drastically lower the profitability of small molecule drugs, or at least drastically change how pharma approves and markets them.

The Act gives the US strong-armed negotiating power on Medicare and Medicaid drug costs after just nine years of exclusivity. How this will be implemented and exactly what effect it will have remains to be seen – as is how much of pharma’s “the sky is falling” attitude about the law is just fearmongering.

Pharma is responding by getting creative, possibly in ways that are not going to accomplish the goals of the law. Some will simply raise drug prices to get more money out of new drugs while they can; others are planning to phase in new indications in order to “reset the clock” as many times as they can.

But to address the root cause and not just the symptoms, pharma will have to take a long hard look in the mirror at how they got here – what their role is in drug prices and how that is disconnected from the public’s perception.

“We need to fix this fast, or else there is going to be more legislation that is going to target us. And it’s the wrong target,” said Philippe Lopes-Fernandes, executive VP and chief business officer at Ipsen.

4. Ups and downs of government – FDA

On the other hand, the executive branch in the form of the FDA receives a more mixed review. Many in pharma applaud the FDA’s willingness to accelerate pathways for new therapies, but too much acceleration, or acceleration poorly executed, has its problems.

FDA Commissioner Robert Califf spent his Monday evening being grilled by STAT’s Matthew Herper about the regulator’s allegedly over-cosy relationship with Biogen and the recent Congressional report that detailed it. But Califf didn’t flinch.

“Almost everything in the report, I’m not arguing with the content. The details are pretty straightforward,” he said, noting that he doesn’t pay much heed to “inflammatory” language. “There can be opinions about the decision, but there was nothing about the report that changed the data.”

And a few different folks noted a rather pertinent problem with the model of approving an experimental therapy and asking for the phase 3 after the fact, something the FDA is dabbling in. Namely, who wants to be in a clinical trial for a drug that’s already in the market? That’s akin to choosing a 50% chance of receiving a life-saving treatment when you could have a 100% chance instead.

So, if this is going to work as a pathway, it’s going to require some smoothing over from AI-driven synthetic controls, real-world evidence, or some combination thereof.

The other big concern about the FDA goes back to the biomarker discussion above – the industry can come up with new and better biomarkers until the cows come home, but if the FDA won’t accept them as an endpoint, their usefulness is severely limited. And of course, the FDA is wont to be a bit more conservative and slow-moving.

5. Massive disruption to clinical trials

Expect more on this topic from me in a larger piece soon, but suffice it to say that clinical trials are being disrupted from all sides, and most seem to agree we haven’t even seen their final form.

First there’s decentralisation, a process innovation that was kicking along in very low gear until COVID-19 came along and launched it into the stratosphere. Unlike telehealth, which has experienced somewhat of a reversion to the mean, decentralised clinical trials (DCTs) are here to stay. The big difference? While telehealth’s effect on the bottom line is questionable at best and dependent on reimbursement changes, DCTs are showing clear savings and efficiency gains (though they are not without their growing pains).

Second, we’re in the middle stages of an industry-wide reckoning with the bigoted history of clinical trials and there’s a massive corrective effort underway to make sure that clinical trials reflect the disease populations they’re studying. DCTs can be a part of this solution, but not the whole of it: it seems clear that having community-based trial sites run by trusted members of minority communities is the path forward to sustainable trial diversity.

Third, while pharma is rebuilding the clinical trial in response to those two trends, tomorrow’s innovators are looking to radically reimagine trials in a world of artificial intelligence and sophisticated remote patient monitoring. Can we use AI to eliminate human placebo groups, making trials easier and cheaper to run? Can we replace short-term, specific data collection with long-term generalised data collection using bespoke and off-the-shelf wearables, apps, and sensors?

Some of these changes are happening now, some are more on the horizon, but if ChatGPT has taught us anything it’s that we’re probably underestimating AI timelines at this point.

Conclusion

Hopefully this provides a good cross-section of some of the biggest, most interesting conversations at JP Morgan this year. And that’s without even getting into digital medicines and digital therapeutics, mRNA vaccines and lessons from COVID, investment trends, or talent and workforce challenges.

If you want to dive deeper, you can peruse our JPM liveblog, take a listen to our wrap-up podcast, check our news section for show news, or stay tuned for a tonne of videos from the ground that we’ll be publishing in the coming weeks.

The post JPM2023: Breakthroughs await, but so do roadblocks appeared first on .

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

February Employment Situation

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000…

Published

on

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000 average over the previous 12 months. The payroll data for January and December were revised down by a total of 167,000. The private sector added 223,000 new jobs, the largest gain since May of last year.

Temporary help services employment continues a steep decline after a sharp post-pandemic rise.

Average hours of work increased from 34.2 to 34.3. The increase, along with the 223,000 private employment increase led to a hefty increase in total hours of 5.6% at an annualized rate, also the largest increase since May of last year.

The establishment report, once again, beat “expectations;” the WSJ survey of economists was 198,000. Other than the downward revisions, mentioned above, another bit of negative news was a smallish increase in wage growth, from $34.52 to $34.57.

The household survey shows that the labor force increased 150,000, a drop in employment of 184,000 and an increase in the number of unemployed persons of 334,000. The labor force participation rate held steady at 62.5, the employment to population ratio decreased from 60.2 to 60.1 and the unemployment rate increased from 3.66 to 3.86. Remember that the unemployment rate is the number of unemployed relative to the labor force (the number employed plus the number unemployed). Consequently, the unemployment rate can go up if the number of unemployed rises holding fixed the labor force, or if the labor force shrinks holding the number unemployed unchanged. An increase in the unemployment rate is not necessarily a bad thing: it may reflect a strong labor market drawing “marginally attached” individuals from outside the labor force. Indeed, there was a 96,000 decline in those workers.

Earlier in the week, the BLS announced JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) data for January. There isn’t much to report here as the job openings changed little at 8.9 million, the number of hires and total separations were little changed at 5.7 million and 5.3 million, respectively.

As has been the case for the last couple of years, the number of job openings remains higher than the number of unemployed persons.

Also earlier in the week the BLS announced that productivity increased 3.2% in the 4th quarter with output rising 3.5% and hours of work rising 0.3%.

The bottom line is that the labor market continues its surprisingly (to some) strong performance, once again proving stronger than many had expected. This strength makes it difficult to justify any interest rate cuts soon, particularly given the recent inflation spike.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Mortgage rates fall as labor market normalizes

Jobless claims show an expanding economy. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

Published

on

Everyone was waiting to see if this week’s jobs report would send mortgage rates higher, which is what happened last month. Instead, the 10-year yield had a muted response after the headline number beat estimates, but we have negative job revisions from previous months. The Federal Reserve’s fear of wage growth spiraling out of control hasn’t materialized for over two years now and the unemployment rate ticked up to 3.9%. For now, we can say the labor market isn’t tight anymore, but it’s also not breaking.

The key labor data line in this expansion is the weekly jobless claims report. Jobless claims show an expanding economy that has not lost jobs yet. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

From the Fed: In the week ended March 2, initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits were flat, at 217,000. The four-week moving average declined slightly by 750, to 212,250


Below is an explanation of how we got here with the labor market, which all started during COVID-19.

1. I wrote the COVID-19 recovery model on April 7, 2020, and retired it on Dec. 9, 2020. By that time, the upfront recovery phase was done, and I needed to model out when we would get the jobs lost back.

2. Early in the labor market recovery, when we saw weaker job reports, I doubled and tripled down on my assertion that job openings would get to 10 million in this recovery. Job openings rose as high as to 12 million and are currently over 9 million. Even with the massive miss on a job report in May 2021, I didn’t waver.

Currently, the jobs openings, quit percentage and hires data are below pre-COVID-19 levels, which means the labor market isn’t as tight as it once was, and this is why the employment cost index has been slowing data to move along the quits percentage.  

2-US_Job_Quits_Rate-1-2

3. I wrote that we should get back all the jobs lost to COVID-19 by September of 2022. At the time this would be a speedy labor market recovery, and it happened on schedule, too

Total employment data

4. This is the key one for right now: If COVID-19 hadn’t happened, we would have between 157 million and 159 million jobs today, which would have been in line with the job growth rate in February 2020. Today, we are at 157,808,000. This is important because job growth should be cooling down now. We are more in line with where the labor market should be when averaging 140K-165K monthly. So for now, the fact that we aren’t trending between 140K-165K means we still have a bit more recovery kick left before we get down to those levels. 




From BLS: Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 275,000 in February, and the unemployment rate increased to 3.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in health care, in government, in food services and drinking places, in social assistance, and in transportation and warehousing.

Here are the jobs that were created and lost in the previous month:

IMG_5092

In this jobs report, the unemployment rate for education levels looks like this:

  • Less than a high school diploma: 6.1%
  • High school graduate and no college: 4.2%
  • Some college or associate degree: 3.1%
  • Bachelor’s degree or higher: 2.2%
IMG_5093_320f22

Today’s report has continued the trend of the labor data beating my expectations, only because I am looking for the jobs data to slow down to a level of 140K-165K, which hasn’t happened yet. I wouldn’t categorize the labor market as being tight anymore because of the quits ratio and the hires data in the job openings report. This also shows itself in the employment cost index as well. These are key data lines for the Fed and the reason we are going to see three rate cuts this year.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January…

Published

on

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January jobs report was the "most ridiculous in recent history" but, boy, were we wrong because this morning the Biden department of goalseeked propaganda (aka BLS) published the February jobs report, and holy crap was that something else. Even Goebbels would blush. 

What happened? Let's take a closer look.

On the surface, it was (almost) another blockbuster jobs report, certainly one which nobody expected, or rather just one bank out of 76 expected. Starting at the top, the BLS reported that in February the US unexpectedly added 275K jobs, with just one research analyst (from Dai-Ichi Research) expecting a higher number.

Some context: after last month's record 4-sigma beat, today's print was "only" 3 sigma higher than estimates. Needless to say, two multiple sigma beats in a row used to only happen in the USSR... and now in the US, apparently.

Before we go any further, a quick note on what last month we said was "the most ridiculous jobs report in recent history": it appears the BLS read our comments and decided to stop beclowing itself. It did that by slashing last month's ridiculous print by over a third, and revising what was originally reported as a massive 353K beat to just 229K,  a 124K revision, which was the biggest one-month negative revision in two years!

Of course, that does not mean that this month's jobs print won't be revised lower: it will be, and not just that month but every other month until the November election because that's the only tool left in the Biden admin's box: pretend the economic and jobs are strong, then revise them sharply lower the next month, something we pointed out first last summer and which has not failed to disappoint once.

To be fair, not every aspect of the jobs report was stellar (after all, the BLS had to give it some vague credibility). Take the unemployment rate, after flatlining between 3.4% and 3.8% for two years - and thus denying expectations from Sahm's Rule that a recession may have already started - in February the unemployment rate unexpectedly jumped to 3.9%, the highest since February 2022 (with Black unemployment spiking by 0.3% to 5.6%, an indicator which the Biden admin will quickly slam as widespread economic racism or something).

And then there were average hourly earnings, which after surging 0.6% MoM in January (since revised to 0.5%) and spooking markets that wage growth is so hot, the Fed will have no choice but to delay cuts, in February the number tumbled to just 0.1%, the lowest in two years...

... for one simple reason: last month's average wage surge had nothing to do with actual wages, and everything to do with the BLS estimate of hours worked (which is the denominator in the average wage calculation) which last month tumbled to just 34.1 (we were led to believe) the lowest since the covid pandemic...

... but has since been revised higher while the February print rose even more, to 34.3, hence why the latest average wage data was once again a product not of wages going up, but of how long Americans worked in any weekly period, in this case higher from 34.1 to 34.3, an increase which has a major impact on the average calculation.

While the above data points were examples of some latent weakness in the latest report, perhaps meant to give it a sheen of veracity, it was everything else in the report that was a problem starting with the BLS's latest choice of seasonal adjustments (after last month's wholesale revision), which have gone from merely laughable to full clownshow, as the following comparison between the monthly change in BLS and ADP payrolls shows. The trend is clear: the Biden admin numbers are now clearly rising even as the impartial ADP (which directly logs employment numbers at the company level and is far more accurate), shows an accelerating slowdown.

But it's more than just the Biden admin hanging its "success" on seasonal adjustments: when one digs deeper inside the jobs report, all sorts of ugly things emerge... such as the growing unprecedented divergence between the Establishment (payrolls) survey and much more accurate Household (actual employment) survey. To wit, while in January the BLS claims 275K payrolls were added, the Household survey found that the number of actually employed workers dropped for the third straight month (and 4 in the past 5), this time by 184K (from 161.152K to 160.968K).

This means that while the Payrolls series hits new all time highs every month since December 2020 (when according to the BLS the US had its last month of payrolls losses), the level of Employment has not budged in the past year. Worse, as shown in the chart below, such a gaping divergence has opened between the two series in the past 4 years, that the number of Employed workers would need to soar by 9 million (!) to catch up to what Payrolls claims is the employment situation.

There's more: shifting from a quantitative to a qualitative assessment, reveals just how ugly the composition of "new jobs" has been. Consider this: the BLS reports that in February 2024, the US had 132.9 million full-time jobs and 27.9 million part-time jobs. Well, that's great... until you look back one year and find that in February 2023 the US had 133.2 million full-time jobs, or more than it does one year later! And yes, all the job growth since then has been in part-time jobs, which have increased by 921K since February 2023 (from 27.020 million to 27.941 million).

Here is a summary of the labor composition in the past year: all the new jobs have been part-time jobs!

But wait there's even more, because now that the primary season is over and we enter the heart of election season and political talking points will be thrown around left and right, especially in the context of the immigration crisis created intentionally by the Biden administration which is hoping to import millions of new Democratic voters (maybe the US can hold the presidential election in Honduras or Guatemala, after all it is their citizens that will be illegally casting the key votes in November), what we find is that in February, the number of native-born workers tumbled again, sliding by a massive 560K to just 129.807 million. Add to this the December data, and we get a near-record 2.4 million plunge in native-born workers in just the past 3 months (only the covid crash was worse)!

The offset? A record 1.2 million foreign-born (read immigrants, both legal and illegal but mostly illegal) workers added in February!

Said otherwise, not only has all job creation in the past 6 years has been exclusively for foreign-born workers...

Source: St Louis Fed FRED Native Born and Foreign Born

... but there has been zero job-creation for native born workers since June 2018!

This is a huge issue - especially at a time of an illegal alien flood at the southwest border...

... and is about to become a huge political scandal, because once the inevitable recession finally hits, there will be millions of furious unemployed Americans demanding a more accurate explanation for what happened - i.e., the illegal immigration floodgates that were opened by the Biden admin.

Which is also why Biden's handlers will do everything in their power to insure there is no official recession before November... and why after the election is over, all economic hell will finally break loose. Until then, however, expect the jobs numbers to get even more ridiculous.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 13:30

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending