Zumilokibart

iStock, Andrii Yalanskyi With the failure in chronic spontaneous urticaria, Evommune’s story is now centered on its anti-IL-18 therapy EVO301, Oppenheimer said, which in February elicited a 33% placebo-adjusted improvement in eczema severity. Evommune is ending the development of its lead asset in chronic spontaneous urticaria after a Phase 2b study demonstrated no significant benefit on disease activity. Evommune had been evaluating the potential of its oral MRGPRX2 blocker EVO756 to ease disease severity among 160 antihistamine-refractory patients with moderate-to-severe illness. The biotech did not share data specifics, only saying in a Monday release that all three tested doses of the drug failed to meet the study’s goal of reducing disease activity at 12 weeks. The lack of efficacy means the biotech will cease development of EVO756 in the indication. Evommune CEO Luis Peña called the outcome “disappointing,” but said the biotech still believes in EVO756’s mechanism as a “new potential therapeutic option to reduce inflammation and provide rapid relief of symptoms.” Evommune shares crashed on Monday, closing the day’s trading session down just over 40%. Despite the hives hitch, Evommune will continue to study EVO756 in atopic dermatitis (AD) and migraine. With the mid-stage fail, the biotech’s therapeutic protein EVO301 “becomes the centerpiece of EVMN story,” Oppenheimer told investors on Monday. The drug candidate, an anti-IL-18 treatment, showed a 33% placebo-adjusted reduction in eczema severity at 12 weeks, according to a February readout from a Phase 2a AD trial. “We expect investors to write off EVO756 programs in AD/migraine and anticipate the IL-18 program to drive the EVMN story,” the analysts wrote. Oppenheimer assigned a 5% probability of success to EVO756 in AD. William Blair had a similar take on EVO756’s chances in AD. While the analysts agreed that EVO301 is now the biotech’s “major value driver with blockbuster potential,” this still remains far off. “With the Phase IIb trial expected to start in mid-2027, we assume results won’t be until the second half of 2028,” they said in a Monday note. Aside from AD, EVO301 is also in Phase 1 development for ulcerative colitis. Immunology and inflammation Evommune Soars as Dermatitis Treatment Rivals Dupixent in Mid-Stage Trial The newly public Evommune shared data showing that EVO301, an IL-18 targeting protein, cleared symptoms comparably to Regeneron and Sanofi’s mega-blockbuster in a mid-stage atopic dermatitis clinical trial. February 10, 2026 · 1 min read · Dan Samorodnitsky Read more The immunology space has recently been energized by two big-ticket deals. AbbVie last week acquired Apogee Therapeutics for $10.9 billion , winning the long-acting IL-13 inhibitor zumilokibart, under development for AD. The candidate appears to be “slightly improved” and offers a “differentiated dosing profile” compared to the mega-blockbuster Dupixent, BMO Capital Markets wrote in a June 19 note. A few days earlier, Biogen put up to $1 billion on the line to absorb RayThera, an immunology specialist with three preclinical anti-inflammatory assets. Not much is known about these molecules, but the first one is set to enter Phase 1 development in the third quarter.

iStock, juvaida khatun Dealmaking across biopharma is shifting dramatically as the SEC rolls out new regulations to ease burdens on newly public companies and antitrust review is replaced by drug pricing as the policy concern du jour. It doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue: Make IPOs Great Again, MIPOGA? Several panelists at the BIO International Convention took a shot at pronouncing the new acronym coined by SEC Chairman Paul Atkins. But while the acronym is difficult, the initiative should ease antitrust review of biotech IPO transactions. Rolled out on May 19, MIOGA is a pair of rulemakings that ease disclosure requirements and speed the process of filing for a registered offering. Sam Zucker, a partner at Goodwin’s Life Sciences group, said the rules essentially make it easier to become a public company. This doesn’t exactly impact the IPO process, but rather the company’s first year on the market, with provisions extending for its first five years. That period is make-or-break for companies. In biotech, much attention is paid to how the stock performs in the aftermath of the stock beginning to trade. Anything that eases that period is welcome. The new initiative “perhaps makes IPOs more attractive to companies that are otherwise hesitant to embrace the transaction costs of being a public company,” Zucker said. But that is actually a rarity in biotech, he quipped. Many companies are eager to cross over to the public markets even before the clinical data would suggest they are ready. “We haven’t seen a lot of that self-restraint,” Zucker said. The SEC is also considering making changes to the so-called “gun-jumping rules,” which limit what a company can say about their intentions to go public. While they aim to make the public markets more fair, Zucker said the rules are “kind of a minefield for companies.” Reforms could come later this year. “This general approach towards simplifying rules is something that … issuers view it as making it easier to get through the SEC,” Zucker continued. Impacting IPO reviews, however, is a staffing shortage at the SEC, he noted. While the process may be easier, sometimes it can take longer for the paperwork to come back. “The crispness of the story” has been a major issue that Doreen Levine, a partner at EY’s Financial Accounting and Advisory Services group, has had to work through with biotechs filing for IPOs. She cautioned companies against “throw[ing] everything under the kitchen sink” into SEC disclosures to ensure the comment period goes smoothly. The agency has been clear about what should and shouldn’t be included in terms of company performance disclosures. The FTC too IPOs are not the only type of dealmaking that appear to have an easier regulatory path under the current administration. Mergers and acquisitions are also benefitting from a more hands-off Federal Trade Commission, according to Casarine Chong, general counsel for R&D and business development at CSL. That was evident in Monday’s announcement that AbbVie would buy Apogee Therapeutics for $10.9 billion, according to Chong. She remembered when AbbVie bought Allergan for $63 billion and the FTC required the divestiture of one of their IL-23 assets, since both companies had them. Mergers & acquisitions AbbVie strikes $10.9B Apogee buy to challenge juggernaut Dupixent AbbVie will add Apogee’s IL-23 blocker to its current immunology stalwarts Skyrizi and Rinvoq, which have helped the pharma ride out the steep patent cliff left behind from mega-blockbuster drug Humira. June 22, 2026 · 2 min read · Tristan Manalac Read more That deal, announced in June 2019, took almost a full year to complete as the FTC intervened on the grounds that AbbVie would seize a monopoly with the two assets in hand. Brazikumab was being developed by Allergan as part of a licensing agreement. AstraZeneca took it back and ultimately discontinued the program in 2023. AbbVie’s IL-23 inhibitor became Skyrizi, which has emerged as a key pillar of the company’s post-Humira plan. Bristol Myers Squibb also faced a tough time closing the massive $74 billion acquisition of Celgene in 2019. “For the last several years, a lot of talk was around closing certainty and the antitrust landscape, and how fraught it had become,” Chong said. “I think the recently announced AbbVie deal shows that maybe that’s less of a risk now.” Apogee’s zumilokibart—also an IL-23 blocker—is at the heart of AbbVie’s latest transaction. “Apparently they feel very comfortable in announcing the acquisition today, and it’s not a multi-asset acquisition,” Chong said. “Essentially, they are making that deal for the IL-23. They must sense that the antitrust landscape is such that that risk is really no longer a driver in terms of deal certainty.” While antitrust review is apparently no longer a concern, policy or regulatory risk has not fully abated. Chong said now biotech and pharma dealmakers alike are contending with the unknowns and potential risks of the Most Favored Nation drug pricing policy. .responsive-container { display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; border: 1px solid #ededed; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, Sans-Serif; padding: 20px 20px 10px 20px; } .column-left { flex: 1; max-width: 45%; padding: 20px 20px 10px 20px; } .column-right { flex: 2; padding: 20px 20px 10px 20px; } @media (max-width: 768px) { .column-left, .column-right { max-width: 100%; flex: 100%; padding: 10px 0; } } Subscribe to BioPharm Executive! Market insights, trending business and policy stories for biopharma leaders hbspt.forms.create({ region: "na1", portalId: "4413123", formId: "7c139b3c-ff0b-44e0-bffe-f449801dca59", onFormSubmitted: function($form, data) { window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; window.dataLayer.push({ 'event': 'GTMevent', 'event_name': 'newsletter_sign_up' }); } });