Will Merck India Divest More Of Its Legacy/Matured Meds?

August 15, 2016 - Leave a Response

Last year, Merck India sold off a few legacy Organon drug franchises in India (which regular readers will recall was legacy Schering-Plough). Like the rumor reported below, the meds then divested were old, mature brands — with good cash flow but scant sales revenue growth in their profiles. It would seem a similar set of deals is being bandied about, at least on a preliminary basis, again as to Organon properties, inside India. To be clear, this deal — should it occur — would not affect any of Kenilworth’s operations outside of the country. So here you go — what we know, or at least, what we’ve heard — after a fine vacation-filled week. . . see below.

As reported overnight, in India then — from the Delhi bureau of The Economic Times — an in-country paper (but as many may know, long ago it started as a British property):

. . . .Merck will probably narrow down on a few therapy areas in the future like its diabetes brands, new generation anti-cancer drugs like Keytruda and vaccines.

“The idea is perhaps to shift gears from a mass market-based revenue generation strategy to improving quality of revenues,” another industry executive noted. Last December, MSD had sold five gastrointestinal brands to Piramal Enterprises for Rs 92 crore.

Those products belonged to Organon, a women’s healthcare company, which was acquired globally by Schering Plough in 2007. Merck and Schering Plough agreed to merge in 2009 as part of a $41 billion transaction. . . .

An O/T one is up next, on the politics of exclusion — and losing strategies. Onward then, under a gray but inviting city-scape, for the leisurely walk in. Be excellent to one another. . . .

No Surprise, Here: Merck Must Pay Gilead’s Attorneys’ Fees — But How Much? $14 Million? — $10 Million?

August 11, 2016 - Leave a Response

As our graphic of last week indicated, at right — this was expected. Now the order has entered.

It would be wise for Merck to offer to pay a substantial portion of the submitted detailed, task based bill — and avoid more legal spend, on all sides. My guess is it is closer to $13 million, than $10 million, if the able Judge is forced to rule. Here’s the end of today’s order:

. . . .For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Gilead’s motion for attorneys’ fees is GRANTED.

The parties shall meet and confer on a reasonable and appropriate briefing schedule regarding the amount of fees that should be awarded to Gilead. The parties shall submit a proposed stipulated briefing schedule on or before August 18, 2016. . . .

Merck will of course appeal on the underlying issue(s), but offering to pay now, should it lose on appeal — that just makes economic sense (i.e., stop the legal clocks) — rather than piling up more spend. But what do I know?

Smile. . . . time to nod off, with two Simones (a gymnast; and a sprint swimmer) showing why each is the envy of the world — less than 20 minutes, and 20 hours ago — respectively. Sweet.

Additional “Request(s) To Admit” Scheduling Dates — In Propecia®/Proscar® MDL — Entered In Federal Court, In Brooklyn Yesterday

August 10, 2016 - Leave a Response

MRK-ALT-Propecia-Status-2016 Just about 24 hours after we reported that “not much was new,” in the SEC Form 10-Q, on the federal Propecia® MDL scheduling front — it turns out that the able Magistrate Judge Kuo was almost simultaneously entering orders designed to move the whole process forward, closer to trial dates — in Brooklyn.

In fact, on Tuesday, she ordered that Merck be required to answer up to 60 so-called “requests to admit,” all as propounded by the plaintiffs’ steering committee lawyers. Essentially, the 60 requests are designed to avoid spending time at trial “proving up” factual matters that Merck does not intend to dispute. For example, Merck isn’t likely to dispute that it manufactured finasteride, or that copies of ads with wavy hair in its Propecia® logo were designed or adopted by it. That sort of thing.

So here is my update to the update — and the full text of the minute order of yesterday, via PACER:

. . . .Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo.

Status Conference held on 8/9/2016. Attorneys Tim Becker and Trent Miracle for Plaintiffs. Attorneys Chip Morrow and Michael Guerra for the Merck Defendants.

Plaintiffs’ Motion [325] is granted with the limitations stated on the record. Plaintiffs may propound 60 Requests for Admissions. The deadline for the requests is October 10, 2016.

The deadline for Defendants’ responses is December 9, 2016. Any disputes that cannot be resolved by the parties are to be raised via simultaneous filings by January 17, 2017.

For the reasons stated on the record, Defendants’ Motion [324] regarding the use of internal Merck documents is granted in part and denied in part.

The parties are to submit by August 12, 2016 a letter proposing 2-3 dates and times for the next status conference. . . .

Now you know. And. . . isn’t summer-time just a grand season? With fresh, juicy, and darkly-ripened Michigan cherries to be devoured from the pop-up farmstands throughout the Loop? I certainly think so. . . grinning ear-to-ear. We need not live high, to live. . . well.

That Longish Keytruda® Vs. Opdivo® Global Patent Wars Update I Promised…

August 10, 2016 - Leave a Response

It has taken me a full day to get back to this, but as I promised yesterday — before all that silly Mattersight mayhem unfolded — here finally is the update, on all the various patent spats around the globe, between Merck and BMS, in immuno oncology. [Our backgrounder, from 18 months ago, here.]

As I’ve indicated below, by bolding parts — this cornucopia of global litigation is still in the early stages, but is hotly contested — as billions are once again potentially at stake. Of particular note is that the formal EU litigation has not yet been filed, but could potentially eventually result in an injunction against sales by one of the parties, there — though I think that is not especially likely. In any event, here’s the whole section, in context, from Monday’s SEC Form 10-Q filing, at pages 22 to 23:

. . . .As previously disclosed, Ono Pharmaceutical Co. (Ono) has a European patent (EP 1 537 878) (’878) that broadly claims the use of an anti-PD-1 antibody, such as the Company’s immunotherapy, Keytruda, for the treatment of cancer. Ono has previously licensed its commercial rights to an anti-PD-1 antibody to Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) in certain markets. The Company believes that the ’878 patent is invalid and filed an opposition in the European Patent Office (EPO) seeking its revocation. In June 2014, the Opposition Division of the EPO found the claims in the ’878 patent are valid. The Company received the Opposition Division’s written opinion in September 2014 and the Company submitted its substantive appeal in February 2015. In April 2014, the Company, and three other companies, opposed another European patent (EP 2 161 336) (’336) owned by BMS and Ono that it believes is invalid. The ’336 patent, as granted, broadly claimed anti-PD-1 antibodies that could include Keytruda. In February 2015 and May 2016, BMS and Ono submitted requests to amend the claims of the ’336 patent. During a hearing in July 2016, the EPO allowed the May 2016 amendment and, as a result, the claims of the ’336 patent no longer broadly claim anti-PD-1 antibodies such as Keytruda.

In May 2014, the Company filed a lawsuit in the UK seeking revocation of the UK national versions of both the ’878 and ’336 patents. In July 2014, Ono and BMS sued the Company seeking a declaration that the ’878 patent would be infringed in the UK by the marketing of Keytruda. The Company has sought a declaration from the UK court that Keytruda will not infringe the ’336 patent in the UK. BMS and Ono notified the Company of their request to amend the claims of the EPO ’336 patent and of their intention to seek permission from the court to similarly amend the UK national version so that the claims of the ’336 patent would no longer broadly claim anti-PD-1 antibodies such as Keytruda. A trial was held in the UK in July 2015. At that trial, the issues of validity and infringement of the ’878 patent were heard at the same time by the court. In October 2015, the court issued its judgment, finding the ’878 patent valid and infringed. Merck appealed this judgment. The appeal is scheduled to be heard in March 2017. BMS and Ono have concurrently started a proceeding to determine the amount of damages and royalties the Company would pay should the appeal be denied. A hearing in that proceeding is scheduled for October 2017.

In February 2015, the Company filed lawsuits in the Netherlands seeking revocation of the Dutch national versions of both the ’878 and ’336 patents. BMS and Ono amended the claims of the ’336 patent so that the claims of the ’336 patent no longer broadly claim anti-PD-1 antibodies such as Keytruda. Trial regarding the validity and infringement of the ’878 patent was held in January 2016. In June 2016, the District Court in The Hague issued its judgment finding the Dutch ‘878 patent valid and infringed. Merck will appeal this judgment.
In December 2015, BMS and Ono filed lawsuits against the Company in France, Ireland, Switzerland and Germany alleging infringement of the ’878 patent. In January 2016, BMS and Ono filed a lawsuit against the Company in Spain alleging infringement of the ’878 patent. In France, BMS and Ono filed for preliminary relief seeking payment of damages while the case is pending. A hearing on this preliminary relief was held in February 2016 and BMS’s and Ono’s request for preliminary relief was denied. Dates for trials regarding the validity and infringement of the Irish, French, Swiss and Spanish national versions of the ’878 patent have not yet been scheduled. A trial concerning the infringement of the German version of the ’878 patent is currently scheduled to begin in March 2017.
The Company continues to believe the ’878 patent is invalid.

The Company can file lawsuits seeking revocation of the ’878 patents in other national courts in Europe at any time, and Ono and BMS can file patent infringement actions against the Company in other national courts in Europe at or around the time the Company launches Keytruda. If a national court determines that the Company infringed a valid claim in the ’878 patent, Ono and BMS may be entitled to monetary damages, including royalties on future sales of Keytruda, and potentially could seek an injunction to prevent the Company from marketing Keytruda in that country.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted US Patent Nos. 8,728,474 to Ono and 8,779,105 to Ono and BMS in May 2014. These patents are equivalent to the ’878 and ’336 patents, respectively. In September 2014, BMS and Ono filed a lawsuit in the United States alleging that, by marketing Keytruda, the Company will infringe US Patent No. 8,728,474. BMS and Ono are not seeking to prevent or stop the marketing of Keytruda in the United States. The trial in this matter is currently scheduled to begin in April 2017. The Company believes that the 8,728,474 patent and the 8,779,105 patent are both invalid. In June 2015 and July 2015, Ono filed lawsuits in the United States alleging that, by marketing Keytruda, the Company will infringe US Patent Nos. 9,067,999 and 9,073,994, which are patents related to the 8,728,474 patent. The Company believes the 9,067,999 and 9,073,994 patents are also invalid. In June 2016, the Company filed petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) in the USPTO alleging that the 9,067,999 and 9,073,994 patents are invalid.

In April 2016, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States against BMS and Ono seeking a ruling that US Patent Nos. 8,779,105 and 9,084,776 are invalid and/or not infringed by the sale of Keytruda. These patents are equivalents of the ’336 patent, as originally granted. In June 2016, Ono and BMS filed a counterclaim that the Company’s marketing, making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing Keytruda in the United States for the treatment of certain cancers, including melanoma and non-small-cell lung cancer, infringes these patents.

In September 2014, the Company filed a lawsuit in Australia seeking revocation of Australian Patent No. 2011203119, which is equivalent to the ’336 patent as originally granted. In March 2015, BMS and Ono counterclaimed in this matter alleging that the Company’s manufacture and supply of Keytruda to the Australian market will infringe Australian Patent No. 2011203119. A trial on this patent is scheduled for September 2017.

Ono and BMS have similar and other patents and applications, which the Company is closely monitoring, pending in the United States, Japan and other countries.

The Company is confident that it will be able to market Keytruda in any country in which it is approved and that it will not be prevented from doing so by the Ono or BMS patents or any pending applications.

In October 2015, PDL Biopharma (PDL) filed a lawsuit in the United States against the Company alleging that the manufacture of Keytruda infringed US Patent No. 5,693,761 (’761 patent), which expired in December 2014. This patent claims platform technology used in the creation and manufacture of recombinant antibodies and PDL is seeking damages for pre-expiry infringement of the ’761 patent.

In July 2016, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States against Genentech and City of Hope seeking a ruling that US Patent No. 7,923,221 (the Cabilly III patent), which claims platform technology used in the creation and manufacture of recombinant antibodies, is invalid and that Keytruda and bezlotoxumab do not infringe the Cabilly III patent. In July 2016, the Company also filed a petition in the USPTO for IPR of certain claims of US Patent No. 6,331,415 (the Cabilly II patent), which claims platform technology used in the creation and manufacture of recombinant antibodies and is also owned by Genentech and City of Hope, as being invalid. The USPTO has six months to decide this petition. . . .

We will of course keep an eye on all of this, so you don’t. have. too. Smile. Onward, on a lovely morning — to the symphony tonight, in all likelihood. . . . and an earlier recording of the signature work.

Strictly O/T: Largely Hapless Little Chicago “Software As A Service” Public Company Reports Q2 Results Tonight

August 9, 2016 - Leave a Response

Strictly speaking, this has nothing to do with the life sciences. So feel free to scroll on by.

But for the last five years or so, on and off — mostly as an MBA-level business school style case study — (along with an anonymous commenting co-hort) I’ve curated a chronicle of the reversals of fortune, and manifold mis-steps — of a hapless Chicago company called Mattersight.

I don’t think there’s ever been a public software/ consulting/tech company that retained (and repeatedly bonused) the same CEO over a 16 year period (and essentially the same board majority, over the same time period) — all while switching cash draining business models at least three times, and never once making a penny of GAAP EPS from continuing operations. Not once in over 16 years. That goes back to the Y2K bug, and internet bubble no. 1. . . . And the stock has fallen from over $305.00 per share, to as low as $2.80 a share (bottom of the melt-down of 2008-2011), and sits at $3.80 per share today.

The reason I choose to mention it today, is that the company will report its Q2 2016 losses this evening after NASDAQ close. Last week, on what appears to be an emergency basis, it took out its old bank lender (likely due to a covenant default), and replaced it with a venture debt lender — on terms that approach vulture lending.

So, tonight’s call portends to be a watershed moment. I expect continuing and perhaps widening losses — as the company spends about $1.50 for every dollar of sales it generates, at present. Last quarter, they parted ways with their CFO of nine months — the third in four years, after only nine months on the job.

The company also admitted it could not reliably track how many copies of its flagship product/software are installed at customers, so it could not be sure it was being paid fairly, on a seat license basis. And still the same team awards itself equity and bonuses, for non-performance — year after year.

So, like the mini-site on KaloBios, in the coming weeks — I’ll add an icon in the left margin on the main site, so you may easily follow along — if the above holds any interest. But I expect that MATR stock will keep falling into tomorrow, at a minimum. Now you know. Onward, for a relaxing walk in. . .

Propecia®/Proscar® MDL: Not Much New In SEC Form 10-Q, Overnight

August 9, 2016 - Leave a Response

Overnight, Merck filed its second quarter SEC Form 10-Q. And since its been a bit since we last mentioned the status of the above litigation, here is the updated paragraph — from Note 8, page 20 — on litigation.

I would also recommend the readership look at the description of the patent litigation between Merck and BMS related to the immuno oncology franchises. Actually, scratch that — I’ll make it a separate post, later today — as time permits. Here is the finasteride update — with nothing really new:

. . . .As previously disclosed, Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Propecia and/or Proscar. As of June 30, 2016, approximately 1,360 lawsuits have been filed by plaintiffs who allege that they have experienced persistent sexual side effects following cessation of treatment with Propecia and/or Proscar. Approximately 50 of the plaintiffs also allege that Propecia or Proscar has caused or can cause prostate cancer, testicular cancer or male breast cancer.

The lawsuits have been filed in various federal courts and in state court in New Jersey. The federal lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a federal multidistrict litigation before Judge Brian Cogan of the Eastern District of New York. The matters pending in state court in New Jersey have been consolidated before Judge Mayer in Middlesex County. In addition, there is one matter pending in state court in Massachusetts and one matter pending in state court in New York. The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits. . . .

Onward now — to a fine summer’s morning — fresh coffee, OJ and a banana. Smiling. . .

Citi’s Andrew Baum Moves Merck’s Price Target Up Modestly — To $65; While Credit Suisse Ups To $73

August 8, 2016 - Leave a Response

Before we discuss what I consider to be the most informed, but clearly diverging Wall Street views, I’ll offer a genuine hat tip, to my eagle eyed weekend anonymous commenters (while I was in the woods) — one of whom mentioned a BMS downgrade, and the other pointed out that BMS’s approach in Checkmate 026 may have lacked scientific rigor, and been driven primarily by hubris. I can concur with both. But I still think longer term, this doesn’t really shift much — in the space, as to Merck. Merck was always going to run diagnostics tests in lung, and it will still do so — now everyone else is likely to, as well. Net, net — a slightly smaller first line lung market, for all — Merck included, by later in 2017. And the market all are chasing is about a quarter of the size of the one that Checkmate 026 missed on, Friday. And so, to the meat of it, then:

Saying that he did not believe the Checkmate 026 trial indicated a longer term shift in market dynamics, and citing the likely entrance of AstraZeneca’s candidate early to mid-next year, Citi’s Andrew Baum has kept Merck’s stock at a “Neutral” rating, and only bumped the price target modestly — to $65.

While others have upped Merck’s target to $72 (BMO), and $73 (Credit Suisse), Piper Jaffray like Citi — has been come out far more conservatively — at $62 (but that may be a bit too jaundiced). Here are the dueling views, with one on the plus side — and here is the latest, from the more circumspect one, via Citi:

. . . .Citi Analyst Andrew Baum maintained a Neutral rating on Merck, with a price target of $65. He added that the new EPS estimates for 2017 and 2018, at $3.81 and $4.39, were now 5 percent higher than the pre-Friday consensus expectations.

Baum commented that Merck’s EPS gains would likely be “relatively short lived” due to the expected positive data from AstraZeneca Plc’s MYSTIC trial, scheduled for March 2017, and Bristol-Myers Squibb’s CHECKMATE 227 trial, expected in August 2017. On account of these, the latest development would have only a modest impact on Merck’s long-term EPS.

“The market share for immuno oncology sponsors in first line NSCLC was always likely to be determined by the relative benefits to be shown with PDx CTLA4 and PDx chemotherapy combinations in ongoing phase III trials. Nothing has changed in this regard. We continue to strongly favour PDx CTLA4 based combinations,” the analyst wrote. . . .

It is quite unusual, for a Fortune 25 company to be thought of so differently — in these widely diverging Wall Street analyses. Especially so, where the company is such an old line component of the DJIA — the views have been refined over seven decades of experience, minimum — in pharma. But here we are. Let’s see where Merck opens today. And, onward — on a perfect Monday morning — sore but smiling. . . . be well, one and all — if you are vacating, or even if not so.

A Recap — FDA Approved Indications For Keytruda®: As Of August 6, 2016

August 6, 2016 - Leave a Response

Kenilworth got some important additional good news late yesterday, just two hours before the celebration of the opening of the Summer Olympics got underway, with a Samba party, and segments on some of the planet’s more vexing problems — in Rio. And so, instead of yet another graphic with the Keytruda® wordmark, I’ll run a picture of the first refugee squad to compete in a modern Olympics, at right. It reminds us all that despite what Mr. Trump says, we are all citizens of the same planet. It reminds us, as Maya Angelou so mellifluously intoneswe are more alike, my friends, than we are unalike.” And we are “each our brother’s and our sisters’ keepers,” in the Gospel of Matthew 25: 31-45.

In a not entirely unrelated vein (stretching all the life we can, from this time on the planet), then — we will note that Merck’s immuno oncology agent, pembrolizumab, won yet another new indication — after the NYSE closed last evening. This time it was for second line recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, during or after chemo. This is decidedly good news. And it widens Merck’s footprint here, nicely.

Having said all that, I’ve set out below the cancers for which pembrolizumab already is approved — and we all may accept that it is being used “off-label” in several others. Just as BMS’s nivolumab is being used. So, as you look at the below, remember that perhaps 15 to 20 per cent of all sales revenue, for both BMS and Merck in this space is “off-label“.

In that context, we may more readily accept that nivolumab, or Opdivo® as it is branded, will continue to outsell pembrolizumab about two-to-one, as it is approved for several more indications, and being used by oncologists, in more off label. The fact that Checkmate 026 missed its end-point primarily means that BMS will not generate five to eight times Merck’s sales, in 2017-18 (and I’d argue that the pre-Friday NYSE price never gave BMS full credit for those sales that had not yet been booked). So again, I think the 15 per cent downturn in BMS’s NYSE price yesterday was at least a bit of Chicken Little. I’d look for it to recover most of that, in the coming weeks, as cooler heads prevail. Here’s a bit from Merck’s latest press release:

. . . .Melanoma

KEYTRUDA is indicated for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma at a dose of 2 mg/kg every three weeks.

Lung Cancer

KEYTRUDA is indicated for the treatment of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors express PD-L1 as determined by an FDA-approved test with disease progression on or after platinum-containing chemotherapy, at a dose of 2 mg/kg every three weeks. Patients with EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations should have disease progression on FDA-approved therapy for these aberrations prior to receiving KEYTRUDA (pembrolizumab). This indication is approved under accelerated approval based on tumor response rate and durability of response. An improvement in survival or disease-related symptoms has not yet been established. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in the confirmatory trials.

Head and Neck Cancer

KEYTRUDA is indicated for the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) with disease progression on or after platinum-containing chemotherapy at a fixed dose of 200 mg every three weeks. This indication is approved under accelerated approval based on tumor response rate and durability of response. Continued approval for this indication may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in the confirmatory trials. . . .

As ever, I think this is all good for cancer patients everywhere generally, and for Merck’s fortunes, particularly — but it is not too terribly negative for BMS, either. One’s gain need not always be another’s loss. Opdivo is still a first in class best in class agent. Off now, to a secluded lake in the north woods, for some tent and kayak time. . . back Sunday evening — smile. Be one anothers’ keepers, one and and all — “whatsoever you do for the least of my children. . . .”

Mr. Frazier Exercised And Sold Yesterday — But Still Owns Same Amount, Outright

August 6, 2016 - Leave a Response

Well, the auto-bot news generators are indicating a large sale by Chairman and CEO Kenneth Frazier.

Dead-hand software cannot discern that Mr. Frazier, pre- and post- these transactions, still owns around 509,000 shares of Merck.

His automated trading plan obviously had an algorithm to exercise, on a cashless basis, certain vested options — on a ten percent or more spike in the NYSE price — as occurred yesterday. So he liquidated options, without dropping his overall stake.

And so, he diversified, but kept the same outstanding stock stake  — in the company. That’s not a negative, in any sense. Now you know. Onward.

The Markets Are Over-Reacting To The BMS Opdivo® Study News… YAWN.

August 5, 2016 - Leave a Response

While this is certainly a chunk of good news, for Kenilworth — I am not so convinced that it is as bad for BMS as a 17 per cent down bubble on the NYSE this morning might imply.

By now, most know that Opdivo didn’t meet a primary end point in CheckMate 026, as the candidate didn’t show progression-free survival in patients with previously untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer. What is underneath that headline though — is not so surprising. [It is largely in line with what I wrote about trend-lines, at the beginning of the week — so I’ve simply answered the question in that graphic at right.]

Upon quite well-founded prodding from a commenter, below — I will say that MRL gets a big hat-tip, for taking a prudent and wise path through the regulatory woods here! And a classics-inclined observer might say BMS took an “Icarus” approach, in its first line lung study. That is, it essentially elected to take all comers in its lung study, which meant that a relatively small proportion of those lung patients in the study presented with lung tumors that expressed very high levels of PD-L1. In fact, the BMS study simply required that the patients’ tumors express at least five percent PD-L1, to be enrolled. That means it chose a much more diverse population of lung cancer patients — ones less likely to benefit (as much) from the candidate, based on prior research.

By way of contrast, Merck had been taking the approach of screening all its lung cancer study subjects — for high levels of expression of PD-L1. That meant for Merck, a smaller market, but a higher chance of success, in that select lung population. For BMS, it likely means that BMS will be required to run the same diagnostic test Merck plans to run — narrowing its market in lung, but not meaning that Merck will be the better option, more generally. Here’s a bit:

. . . .BMS said Opdivo missed its primary endpoint in the Phase III CheckMate -026 trial, namely progression-free survival in treatment-naïve NSCLC patients whose tumors expressed programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) at ≥5%. . . .

So I do think the traders are over-reacting, as to BMS, this morning. But it is good news for Kenilworth. [I should say — for the sake of clarity — I am not long or short either name.] We won’t see the effect of this until mid 2017, however, in all probability. And even then, I think Opdivo is likely to maintain its overall lead, across a wide array of cancers. Out now, for a cloud-covered walk over, this morning. . . smile.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 69 other followers