Category Archives: New Jersey Stem Cells

This study was reported on at SNO in Phoenix last week and although it is based on a small cohort (number of patients involved) it has generated much excitement because The oncolytic herpes virus type 1 G47 may become a preferred treatment that leads potentially to a cure of malignant glioma in the near future. ( you will need to click through to this page and then click on the first link on that page to access this update)

Some of the biggest names in US paediatric brain tumour research, in collaboration, have discovered that several types of highly aggressive and, ultimately, fatal paediatric brain tumours originate during brain development. The genetic event that triggers the disease happens in the very earliest phases of cellular development, most likely a prenatal stage, and these findings represent a significant advance in understanding these diseases. The research team leader Dr Claudia Kleinman, from the Lady Davis Institute at the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal said The genesis of the tumours means that there are really no environmental instigators or preventive measures that parents can take. Advancing our understanding of these tumours is important because the effects are so devastating, we want to bring hope to the patients."

In other paediatric brain cancer news $150,000 funding has been pledged from the Om Foundation for investigators at Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey to examine a certain type of medication that impacts gene activity in the treatment of Ependymoma , the third most common childhood brain cancer. Treatment results for Ependymoma have been unsatisfactory due to a lack of effective drugs with surgical removal and radiation therapy being the standard treatments, and chemotherapy not being shown to improve survival rates. Sadly, post-intervention recurrence is common.

Ependymomas have many potentially 'good' genes that are silenced through an epigenetic mechanism (epigenetics is the study of inherited changes in gene expression - active versus inactive genes- that do not involve changes to the underlying DNA sequence). This means that these genes are still present in the tumour but not active. Certain medications (epigenetic modifiers) can reactivate these silenced genes causing cancer cells to return to normal and increased cell killing when combined with radiotherapy.

The Om Parikh Memorial Fund for Paediatric Cancer Research was formed to honour Om Parikh, who died of oligodendroglioma last year aged 13.

In industry news, Australian Biotechnology company Kazia Therapeutics saw their share price surge following positive interim results in phase II glioblastoma trial again note small cohort size.

Radiotherapy is essential for treating paediatric brain tumours, but the treatment comes with the risk of cognitive impairment. Researchers in the US and Canada have examined children diagnosed with medulloblastoma and treated them with two different kinds of radiotherapyproton radiotherapy and photon radiotherapyand found those treated with proton radiotherapy had less intellectual decline. One of the issues this raises in the US is that proton radiotherapy is more costly than photon radiotherapy and is not always covered by insurance. The researchers conclude that:If studies continue to demonstrate that proton radiotherapy offers medical and quality of life benefits that are superior to photon radiotherapy, we will need to address barriers to access for paediatric brain tumour patients .

Ending this week with more about Glioblastoma treatments but this time involving drug repurposing; A gene called mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue l (MALT1), is highly active in lymphoma, a type of blood cancer, and blocking MALT1 causes lymphoma cells to die. MALT1 blockers have long been in clinical use for the treatment of blood cancers. European researchers uncovered that targeting MALT1 with MALT1 blockers caused glioblastoma stem cells to undergo a rare form of cellular suicide and that this points to the possibility of further exploring MALT1 inhibitors as potential treatment of glioblastoma.

Related reading:

If you found this story interesting or helpful,sign up to our weekly e-newsand keep up to date with all the latest from Brain Tumour Research.

Read more:
Weekly pick of Neuroscience news from around the world - Brain Tumour Research

Rigel Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ:RIGL) and Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:BCLI), both competing one another are Biotechnology companies. We will contrast their institutional ownership, analyst recommendations, profitability, risk, dividends, earnings and valuation.

Valuation and Earnings

Demonstrates Rigel Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. earnings per share (EPS), gross revenue and valuation.

Profitability

Table 2 provides us the return on assets, net margins and return on equity of both businesses.

Risk & Volatility

Rigel Pharmaceuticals Inc.s volatility measures that its 20.00% more volatile than S&P 500 due to its 1.2 beta. In other hand, Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. has beta of 1.19 which is 19.00% more volatile than S&P 500.

Liquidity

Rigel Pharmaceuticals Inc.s Current Ratio is 5.3 while its Quick Ratio is 5.3. On the competitive side is, Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. which has a 1 Current Ratio and a 1 Quick Ratio. Rigel Pharmaceuticals Inc. is better positioned to pay off short and long-term obligations compared to Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc.

Analyst Ratings

In next table is delivered Rigel Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc.s ratings and recommendations.

Rigel Pharmaceuticals Inc.s average price target is $6.67, while its potential upside is 178.50%. Competitively Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. has an average price target of $9, with potential upside of 126.64%. The results from earlier shows that analysts opinion suggest that Rigel Pharmaceuticals Inc. seems more appealing than Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc.

Institutional & Insider Ownership

Institutional investors held 96.2% of Rigel Pharmaceuticals Inc. shares and 11.4% of Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. shares. About 0.25% of Rigel Pharmaceuticals Inc.s share are held by insiders. Competitively, 0.6% are Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc.s share held by insiders.

Performance

In this table we show the Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, Half Yearly, Yearly and YTD Performance of both pretenders.

For the past year Rigel Pharmaceuticals Inc. had bearish trend while Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. had bullish trend.

Summary

Rigel Pharmaceuticals Inc. beats on 8 of the 11 factors Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc.

Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a clinical-stage biotechnology company, engages in the discovery and development of drugs in the therapeutic areas of immunology, oncology, and immuno-oncology. The companys clinical programs include fostamatinib, an oral spleen tyrosine kinase (SYK) inhibitor, which has completed Phase III clinical program for immune thrombocytopenia purpura; and Phase II clinical study for autoimmune hemolytic anemia and IgA nephropathy. It is also developing two oncology product candidates, which are in Phase I and Phase II. Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has license agreements with Aclaris Therapeutics International Limited for the development and commercialization of janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for the treatment of alopecia areata and other dermatological conditions; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company for the discovery, development, and commercialization of cancer immunotherapies; AstraZeneca AB for the development and commercialization of R256, an inhaled JAK inhibitor; BerGenBio AS for the development and commercialization of an oncology program; and Daiichi Sankyo to pursue research related to ligases. The company was founded in 1996 and is based in South San Francisco, California.

Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc., a biotechnology company, develops adult stem cell therapies for neurodegenerative disorders that include amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, Parkinsons disease, and others. The company holds rights to develop and commercialize its NurOwn technology through a licensing agreement with Ramot of Tel Aviv University Ltd. Its NurOwn technology is based on a novel differentiation protocol, which induces differentiation of the bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells into neuron-supporting cells and secreting cells that release various neurotrophic factors, including glial-derived neurotrophic factor, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, vascular endothelial growth factor, and hepatocyte growth factor for the growth, survival, and differentiation of developing neurons. The company was formerly known as Golden Hand Resources Inc. and changed its name to Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. in November 2004 to reflect its new line of business in the development of novel cell therapies for neurodegenerative diseases. Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Hackensack, New Jersey.

Receive News & Ratings Via Email - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings with our FREE daily email newsletter.

Continue reading here:
Comparing of Rigel Pharmaceuticals Inc. (RIGL) and Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:BCLI) - The Broch Herald

SUMMIT, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Celgene Corporation (NASDAQ: CELG) today announced data from nearly 70 Company-sponsored, global alliance and investigator-initiated clinical studies evaluating Celgenes investigational and approved therapies will be presented at the 61st American Society of Hematology (ASH) Annual Meeting & Exposition, December 7-10, in Orlando, Fla.

Celgene has a deep and ongoing commitment to innovative research and development in treatments for serious blood disorders, with the potential to transform patient outcomes, said Alise Reicin, M.D., President, Global Clinical Development for Celgene. We look forward to ASH as an opportunity to highlight our commitment and leadership in the research and development of novel therapies for the treatment of blood cancers through new insights in both CD19 and BCMA targeted cell therapies and important progress in our myeloid pipeline.

In leukemia and lymphoma, highlighted studies this year include safety and efficacy results from the pivotal TRANSCEND NHL-001 study of an investigational CD-19 targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) in relapsed/refractory large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Additional liso-cel data from three ongoing studies will evaluate the use of the therapy in an outpatient setting, as well as in transplant noneligible patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (PILOT) and in patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (TRANSCEND CLL-004).

In multiple myeloma, other notable investigational cell therapy abstracts include the first phase 1 clinical data from the bi-specific T-Cell Engager (TCE) CC-93269 and updated phase 1 clinical data from CAR T program, bb21217, both targeting the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) in relapsed/refractory disease.

Several abstracts focusing on data in myeloid diseases including longer-term response data from the phase 3 MEDALIST study of luspatercept to treat anemia in patients with IPSS-R very low-, low-, or intermediate-risk myelodysplastic syndromes with ring sideroblasts who require red-blood-cell (RBC) transfusions will be presented. Additionally, the first data from a phase 2 study of luspatercept in myelofibrosis-associated anemia, results from a study of fedratinib in myelofibrosis patients with low platelet counts, and the first data from CELMoD agent CC-90009, a GSPT1 degrader in relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) will be presented.

Selected abstracts include*:

Lymphoma & Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

Multiple Myeloma

Myeloid Diseases

Beta thalassemia

A complete listing of abstracts can be found at https://www.hematology.org/Annual-Meeting/abstracts/

The safety and efficacy of investigational agents and/or investigational uses of approved marketed products have not been established. There is no guarantee that the agents will receive health authority approval or become commercially available in any country for the uses being investigated.

*All times Eastern Time

About REVLIMID

REVLIMID (lenalidomide) in combination with dexamethasone (dex) is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with multiple myeloma (MM)

REVLIMID is indicated as maintenance therapy in adult patients with MM following autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HSCT)

REVLIMID is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with transfusion-dependent anemia due to low-or intermediate-1risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) associated with a deletion 5q cytogenetic abnormality with or without additional cytogenetic abnormalities

REVLIMID is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) whose disease has relapsed or progressed after two prior therapies, one of which included bortezomib

REVLIMID in combination with a rituximab product is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with previously treated follicular lymphoma (FL)

REVLIMID in combination with a rituximab product is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with previously treated marginal zone lymphoma (MZL)

REVLIMID is not indicated and is not recommended for the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) outside of controlled clinical trials

REVLIMID is only available through a restricted distribution program, REVLIMID REMS.

Important Safety Information

WARNING: EMBRYO-FETAL TOXICITY, HEMATOLOGIC TOXICITY, and VENOUS and ARTERIAL THROMBOEMBOLISM

Embryo-Fetal Toxicity

Do not use REVLIMID during pregnancy. Lenalidomide, a thalidomide analogue, caused limb abnormalities in a developmental monkey study. Thalidomide is a known human teratogen that causes severe life-threatening human birth defects. If lenalidomide is used during pregnancy, it may cause birth defects or embryo-fetal death. In females of reproductive potential, obtain 2 negative pregnancy tests before starting REVLIMID treatment. Females of reproductive potential must use 2 forms of contraception or continuously abstain from heterosexual sex during and for 4 weeks after REVLIMID treatment. To avoid embryo-fetal exposure to lenalidomide, REVLIMID is only available through a restricted distribution program, the REVLIMID REMS program.

Information about the REVLIMID REMS program is available at http://www.celgeneriskmanagement.com or by calling the manufacturers toll-free number 1-888-423-5436.

Hematologic Toxicity (Neutropenia and Thrombocytopenia)

REVLIMID can cause significant neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Eighty percent of patients with del 5q MDS had to have a dose delay/reduction during the major study. Thirty-four percent of patients had to have a second dose delay/reduction. Grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicity was seen in 80% of patients enrolled in the study. Patients on therapy for del 5q MDS should have their complete blood counts monitored weekly for the first 8 weeks of therapy and at least monthly thereafter. Patients may require dose interruption and/or reduction. Patients may require use of blood product support and/or growth factors.

Venous and Arterial Thromboembolism

REVLIMID has demonstrated a significantly increased risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), as well as risk of myocardial infarction and stroke in patients with MM who were treated with REVLIMID and dexamethasone therapy. Monitor for and advise patients about signs and symptoms of thromboembolism. Advise patients to seek immediate medical care if they develop symptoms such as shortness of breath, chest pain, or arm or leg swelling. Thromboprophylaxis is recommended and the choice of regimen should be based on an assessment of the patients underlying risks.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Pregnancy: REVLIMID can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant female and is contraindicated in females who are pregnant. If this drug is used during pregnancy or if the patient becomes pregnant while taking this drug, the patient should be apprised of the potential risk to the fetus

Severe Hypersensitivity Reactions: REVLIMID is contraindicated in patients who have demonstrated severe hypersensitivity (e.g., angioedema, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis) to lenalidomide

WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS

Embryo-Fetal Toxicity: See Boxed WARNINGS

REVLIMID REMS Program: See Boxed WARNINGS: Prescribers and pharmacies must be certified with the REVLIMID REMS program by enrolling and complying with the REMS requirements; pharmacies must only dispense to patients who are authorized to receive REVLIMID. Patients must sign a Patient-Physician Agreement Form and comply with REMS requirements; female patients of reproductive potential who are not pregnant must comply with the pregnancy testing and contraception requirements and males must comply with contraception requirements

Hematologic Toxicity: REVLIMID can cause significant neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Monitor patients with neutropenia for signs of infection. Advise patients to observe for bleeding or bruising, especially with use of concomitant medications that may increase risk of bleeding. Patients may require dose interruption and/or dose reduction. MM: Monitor complete blood counts (CBC) in patients taking REVLIMID + dexamethasone or REVLIMID as maintenance therapy, every 7 days for the first 2 cycles, on days 1 and 15 of cycle 3, and every 28 days thereafter. MDS: Monitor CBC in patients on therapy for del 5q MDS, weekly for the first 8 weeks of therapy and at least monthly thereafter. See Boxed WARNINGS for further information. MCL: Monitor CBC in patients taking REVLIMID for MCL weekly for the first cycle (28 days), every 2 weeks during cycles 2-4, and then monthly thereafter. FL/MZL: Monitor CBC in patients taking REVLIMID for FL or MZL weekly for the first 3 weeks of Cycle 1 (28 days), every 2 weeks during Cycles 2-4, and then monthly thereafter

Venous and Arterial Thromboembolism: See Boxed WARNINGS: Venous thromboembolic events (DVT and PE) and arterial thromboses (MI and CVA) are increased in patients treated with REVLIMID. Patients with known risk factors, including prior thrombosis, may be at greater risk and actions should be taken to try to minimize all modifiable factors (e.g., hyperlipidemia, hypertension, smoking). Thromboprophylaxis is recommended and the regimen should be based on the patients underlying risks. ESAs and estrogens may further increase the risk of thrombosis and their use should be based on a benefit-risk decision

Increased Mortality in Patients With CLL: In a clinical trial in the first-line treatment of patients with CLL, single-agent REVLIMID therapy increased the risk of death as compared to single-agent chlorambucil. Serious adverse cardiovascular reactions, including atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, and cardiac failure, occurred more frequently in the REVLIMID arm. REVLIMID is not indicated and not recommended for use in CLL outside of controlled clinical trials

Second Primary Malignancies (SPM): In clinical trials in patients with MM receiving REVLIMID and in patients with FL or MZL receiving REVLIMID + rituximab therapy, an increase of hematologic plus solid tumor SPM, notably AML, have been observed. In MM patients, MDS was also observed. Monitor patients for the development of SPM. Take into account both the potential benefit of REVLIMID and risk of SPM when considering treatment

Increased Mortality with Pembrolizumab: In clinical trials in patients with MM, the addition of pembrolizumab to a thalidomide analogue plus dexamethasone resulted in increased mortality. Treatment of patients with MM with a PD-1-or PD-L1- blocking antibody in combination with a thalidomide analogue plus dexamethasone is not recommended outside of controlled clinical trials

Hepatotoxicity: Hepatic failure, including fatal cases, has occurred in patients treated with REVLIMID + dexamethasone. Pre-existing viral liver disease, elevated baseline liver enzymes, and concomitant medications may be risk factors. Monitor liver enzymes periodically. Stop REVLIMID upon elevation of liver enzymes. After return to baseline values, treatment at a lower dose may be considered

Severe Cutaneous Reactions Including Hypersensitivity Reactions: Angioedema and severe cutaneous reactions including Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS), toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) have been reported. These events can be fatal. Patients with a prior history of Grade 4 rash associated with thalidomide treatment should not receive REVLIMID. REVLIMID interruption or discontinuation should be considered for Grade 2-3 skin rash. REVLIMID must be discontinued for angioedema, Grade 4 rash, exfoliative or bullous rash, or if SJS, TEN, or DRESS is suspected and should not be resumed following discontinuation for these reactions

Tumor Lysis Syndrome (TLS): Fatal instances of TLS have been reported during treatment with REVLIMID. The patients at risk of TLS are those with high tumor burden prior to treatment. Closely monitor patients at risk and take appropriate preventive approaches

Tumor Flare Reaction (TFR): TFR has occurred during investigational use of REVLIMID for CLL and lymphoma. Monitoring and evaluation for TFR is recommended in patients with MCL, FL, or MZL. Tumor flare may mimic the progression of disease (PD). In patients with Grade 3 or 4 TFR, it is recommended to withhold treatment with REVLIMID until TFR resolves to Grade 1. REVLIMID may be continued in patients with Grade 1 and 2 TFR without interruption or modification, at the physicians discretion

Impaired Stem Cell Mobilization: A decrease in the number of CD34+ cells collected after treatment (>4 cycles) with REVLIMID has been reported. Consider early referral to transplant center to optimize timing of the stem cell collection

Thyroid Disorders: Both hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism have been reported. Measure thyroid function before starting REVLIMID treatment and during therapy

Early Mortality in Patients With MCL: In another MCL study, there was an increase in early deaths (within 20 weeks); 12.9% in the REVLIMID arm versus 7.1% in the control arm. Risk factors for early deaths include high tumor burden, MIPI score at diagnosis, and high WBC at baseline (10 x 109/L)

ADVERSE REACTIONS

Multiple Myeloma

Myelodysplastic Syndromes

Mantle Cell Lymphoma

Follicular Lymphoma/Marginal Zone Lymphoma

DRUG INTERACTIONS

Periodically monitor digoxin plasma levels due to increased Cmax and AUC with concomitant REVLIMID therapy. Patients taking concomitant therapies such as erythropoietin-stimulating agents or estrogen-containing therapies may have an increased risk of thrombosis. It is not known whether there is an interaction between dexamethasone and warfarin. Close monitoring of PT and INR is recommended in patients with MM taking concomitant warfarin

USE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS

Please see full Prescribing Information, including Boxed WARNINGS, for REVLIMID.

About INREBIC

INREBIC (fedratinib) is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk primary or secondary (post-polycythemia vera or post-essential thrombocythemia) myelofibrosis (MF).

IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION

WARNING: ENCEPHALOPATHY INCLUDING WERNICKES

Serious and fatal encephalopathy, including Wernickes, has occurred in patients treated with INREBIC. Wernickes encephalopathy is a neurologic emergency. Assess thiamine levels in all patients prior to starting INREBIC, periodically during treatment, and as clinically indicated. Do not start INREBIC in patients with thiamine deficiency; replete thiamine prior to treatment initiation. If encephalopathy is suspected, immediately discontinue INREBIC and initiate parenteral thiamine. Monitor until symptoms resolve or improve and thiamine levels normalize.

WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS

Encephalopathy, including Wernickes: Serious and fatal encephalopathy, including Wernickes encephalopathy, has occurred in INREBIC-treated patients. Serious cases were reported in 1.3% (8/608) of patients treated with INREBIC in clinical trials and 0.16% (1/608) of cases were fatal.

Wernickes encephalopathy is a neurologic emergency resulting from thiamine (Vitamin B1) deficiency. Signs and symptoms of Wernickes encephalopathy may include ataxia, mental status changes, and ophthalmoplegia (e.g., nystagmus, diplopia). Any change in mental status, confusion, or memory impairment should raise concern for potential encephalopathy, including Wernickes, and prompt a full evaluation including a neurologic examination, assessment of thiamine levels, and imaging. Assess thiamine levels in all patients prior to starting INREBIC, periodically during treatment, and as clinically indicated. Do not start INREBIC in patients with thiamine deficiency; replete thiamine prior to treatment initiation. If encephalopathy is suspected, immediately discontinue INREBIC and initiate parenteral thiamine. Monitor until symptoms resolve or improve and thiamine levels normalize.

Anemia: New or worsening Grade 3 anemia occurred in 34% of INREBIC-treated patients. The median time to onset of the first Grade 3 anemia was approximately 2 months, with 75% of cases occurring within 3 months. Mean hemoglobin levels reached nadir after 12 to 16 weeks with partial recovery and stabilization after 16 weeks. Red blood cell transfusions were received by 51% of INREBIC-treated patients and permanent discontinuation of INREBIC occurred due to anemia in 1% of patients. Consider dose reduction for patients who become red blood cell transfusion dependent

Thrombocytopenia: New or worsening Grade 3 thrombocytopenia during the randomized treatment period occurred in 12% of INREBIC-treated patients. The median time to onset of the first Grade 3 thrombocytopenia was approximately 1 month; with 75% of cases occurring within 4 months. Platelet transfusions were received by 3.1% INREBIC-treated patients. Permanent discontinuation of treatment due to thrombocytopenia and bleeding that required clinical intervention both occurred in 2.1% of INREBIC-treated patients. Obtain a complete blood count (CBC) at baseline, periodically during treatment, and as clinically indicated. For Grade 3 thrombocytopenia with active bleeding or Grade 4 thrombocytopenia, interrupt INREBIC until resolved to less than or equal to Grade 2 or baseline. Restart dose at 100 mg daily below the last given dose and monitor platelets as clinically indicated.

Gastrointestinal Toxicity: Gastrointestinal toxicities are the most frequent adverse reactions in INREBIC-treated patients. During the randomized treatment period, diarrhea occurred in 66% of patients, nausea in 62% of patient and vomiting in 39% of patients. Grade 3 diarrhea 5% and vomiting 3.1% occurred. The median time to onset of any grade nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea was 1 day, with 75% of cases occurring within 2 weeks of treatment. Consider providing appropriate prophylactic anti-emetic therapy (e.g., 5-HT3 receptor antagonists) during INREBIC treatment. Treat diarrhea with anti-diarrheal medications promptly at the first onset of symptoms. Grade 3 or higher nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea not responsive to supportive measures within 48 hours, interrupt INREBIC until resolved to Grade 1 or less or baseline. Restart dose at 100 mg daily below the last given dose. Monitor thiamine levels and replete as needed.

Hepatic Toxicity: Elevations of ALT and AST (all grades) during the randomized treatment period occurred in 43% and 40%, respectively, with Grade 3 or 4 in 1% and 0%, respectively, of INREBIC-treated patients. The median time to onset of any grade transaminase elevation was approximately 1 month, with 75% of cases occurring within 3 months. Monitor hepatic function at baseline, periodically during treatment, and as clinically indicated. For Grade 3 or higher ALT and/or AST elevations (greater than 5 ULN), interrupt INREBIC dose until resolved to Grade 1 or less or to baseline. Restart dose at 100 mg daily below the last given dose. If re-occurrence of a Grade 3 or higher elevation of ALT/AST, discontinue treatment with INREBIC.

Amylase and Lipase Elevation: Grade 3 or higher amylase 2% and/or lipase 10% elevations developed in INREBIC-treated patients. The median time to onset of any grade amylase or lipase elevation was 15 days, with 75% of cases occurring within 1 month of starting treatment. One patient developed pancreatitis in the fedratinib clinical development program (n=608) and pancreatitis resolved with treatment discontinuation. Monitor amylase and lipase at baseline, periodically during treatment, and as clinically indicated. For Grade 3 or higher amylase and/or lipase elevations, interrupt INREBIC until resolved to Grade 1 or less or to baseline. Restart dose at 100 mg daily below the last given dose.

ADVERSE REACTIONS: The most common adverse reactions for INREBIC treated vs. placebo were diarrhea (66% vs. 16%), nausea (62% vs. 15%), anemia (40% vs. 14%), and vomiting (39% vs. 5%). Dosage interruptions due to an adverse reaction during the randomized treatment period occurred in 21% of patients who received INREBIC. Adverse reactions requiring dosage interruption in >3% of patients who received INREBIC included diarrhea and nausea. Dosage reductions due to an adverse reaction during the randomized treatment period occurred in 19% of patients who received INREBIC. Adverse reactions requiring dosage reduction in >2% of patients who received INREBIC included anemia (6%), diarrhea (3%), vomiting (3%), and thrombocytopenia (2%).

DRUG INTERACTIONS: Coadministration of INREBIC with a strong CYP3A4 inhibitor increases fedratinib exposure. Increased exposure may increase the risk of adverse reactions. Consider alternative therapies that do not strongly inhibit CYP3A4 activity. Alternatively, reduce the dose of INREBIC when administering with a strong CYP3A4 inhibitor. Avoid INREBIC with strong and moderate CYP3A4 inducers. Avoid INREBIC with dual CYP3A4 and CYP2C19 inhibitor. Coadministration of INREBIC with drugs that are CYP3A4 substrates, CYP2C19 substrates, or CYP2D6 substrates increases the concentrations of these drugs, which may increase the risk of adverse reactions of these drugs. Monitor for adverse reactions and adjust the dose of drugs that are CYP3A4, CYP2C19, or CYP2D6 substrates as necessary when coadministered with INREBIC.

PREGNANCY/LACTATION: Consider the benefits and risks of INREBIC for the mother and possible risks to the fetus when prescribing INREBIC to a pregnant woman. Due to the potential for serious adverse reactions in a breastfed child, advise patients not to breastfeed during treatment with INREBIC, and for at least 1 month after the last dose.

RENAL IMPAIRMENT: Reduce INREBIC dose when administered to patients with severe renal impairment. No modification of the starting dose is recommended for patients with mild to moderate renal impairment. Due to potential increase of exposure, patients with preexisting moderate renal impairment require more intensive safety monitoring, and if necessary, dose modifications based on adverse reactions.

HEPATIC IMPAIRMENT: Avoid use of INREBIC in patients with severe hepatic impairment.

Please see full Prescribing Information, including Boxed WARNING.

About Celgene

Celgene Corporation, headquartered in Summit, New Jersey, is an integrated global biopharmaceutical company engaged primarily in the discovery, development and commercialization of innovative therapies for the treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases through next-generation solutions in protein homeostasis, immuno-oncology, epigenetics, immunology and neuro-inflammation. For more information, please visit http://www.celgene.com. Follow Celgene on Social Media: Twitter, Pinterest, LinkedIn, Facebook and YouTube.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This press release contains forward-looking statements, which are generally statements that are not historical facts. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the words "expects," "anticipates," "believes," "intends," "estimates," "plans," "will," "outlook" and similar expressions. Forward-looking statements are based on management's current plans, estimates, assumptions and projections, and speak only as of the date they are made. We undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statement in light of new information or future events, except as otherwise required by law. Forward-looking statements involve inherent risks and uncertainties, most of which are difficult to predict and are generally beyond our control. Actual results or outcomes may differ materially from those implied by the forward-looking statements as a result of the impact of a number of factors, many of which are discussed in more detail in our Annual Report on Form 10-K and our other reports filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, including factors related to the proposed transaction between Bristol-Myers Squibb and Celgene, such as, but not limited to, the risks that: management's time and attention is diverted on transaction related issues, including the planned divestiture of OTEZLA; disruption from the proposed transaction makes it more difficult to maintain business, contractual and operational relationships; legal proceedings are instituted against Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene or the combined company; and Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene or the combined company is unable to retain key personnel.

Hyperlinks are provided as a convenience and for informational purposes only. Celgene bears no responsibility for the security or content of external websites.

All trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

Read more:
Celgene to Present New and Updated Data on Key Hematology Pipeline Therapies at American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2019 Annual Meeting - Business...

Surface Oncology Inc. (NASDAQ:SURF) and Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:BCLI) are two firms in the Biotechnology that compete against each other. Below is a comparison of their profitability, institutional ownership, analyst recommendations, risk, dividends, earnings and valuation.

Valuation & Earnings

Table 1 shows the top-line revenue, earnings per share (EPS) and valuation for Surface Oncology Inc. and Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc.

Profitability

Table 2 shows the return on assets, return on equity and net margins of the two firms.

Liquidity

The Current Ratio and a Quick Ratio of Surface Oncology Inc. are 11.3 and 11.3. Competitively, Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. has 1 and 1 for Current and Quick Ratio. Surface Oncology Inc.s better ability to pay short and long-term obligations than Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc.

Analyst Recommendations

The next table highlights the delivered recommendations and ratings for Surface Oncology Inc. and Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc.

Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. on the other hand boasts of a $9 consensus price target and a 138.73% potential upside.

Institutional and Insider Ownership

The shares of both Surface Oncology Inc. and Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. are owned by institutional investors at 71.6% and 11.4% respectively. 0.2% are Surface Oncology Inc.s share owned by insiders. Insiders Comparatively, owned 0.6% of Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. shares.

Performance

In this table we provide the Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, Half Yearly, Yearly and YTD Performance of both pretenders.

For the past year Surface Oncology Inc. has -47.88% weaker performance while Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. has 12.96% stronger performance.

Surface Oncology, Inc., a clinical-stage immuno-oncology company, engages in the development of cancer therapies. The company's lead product candidate is the SRF231 that is in Phase I clinical trial targeting protein called cluster of differentiation (CD) 47. It is also developing SRF373 inhibiting CD73; SRF617 inhibiting CD39; and SRF388, an antibody targeting interleukin 27. The company has a collaboration agreement with Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Inc. for the development of cancer therapies. Surface Oncology, Inc. was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc., a biotechnology company, develops adult stem cell therapies for neurodegenerative disorders that include amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, Parkinsons disease, and others. The company holds rights to develop and commercialize its NurOwn technology through a licensing agreement with Ramot of Tel Aviv University Ltd. Its NurOwn technology is based on a novel differentiation protocol, which induces differentiation of the bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells into neuron-supporting cells and secreting cells that release various neurotrophic factors, including glial-derived neurotrophic factor, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, vascular endothelial growth factor, and hepatocyte growth factor for the growth, survival, and differentiation of developing neurons. The company was formerly known as Golden Hand Resources Inc. and changed its name to Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. in November 2004 to reflect its new line of business in the development of novel cell therapies for neurodegenerative diseases. Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Hackensack, New Jersey.

Receive News & Ratings Via Email - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings with our FREE daily email newsletter.

Continued here:
Reviewing Surface Oncology Inc. (SURF)'s and Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:BCLI)'s results - FinanceMercury

This is therefore a contrasting of the risk, institutional ownership, analyst recommendations, profitability, dividends, earnings and valuation in Magenta Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:MGTA) and PTC Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:PTCT). The two are both Biotechnology companies that compete with one another.

Earnings and Valuation

Table 1 demonstrates Magenta Therapeutics Inc. and PTC Therapeutics Inc.s gross revenue, earnings per share (EPS) and valuation.

Profitability

Table 2 shows the return on assets, return on equity and net margins of the two firms.

Liquidity

The Current Ratio and Quick Ratio of Magenta Therapeutics Inc. are 17.1 and 17.1 respectively. Its competitor PTC Therapeutics Inc.s Current Ratio is 3.3 and its Quick Ratio is 3.2. Magenta Therapeutics Inc. can pay off short and long-term obligations better than PTC Therapeutics Inc.

Analyst Ratings

The following table given below contains the ratings and recommendations for Magenta Therapeutics Inc. and PTC Therapeutics Inc.

Meanwhile, PTC Therapeutics Inc.s consensus target price is $50.67, while its potential upside is 25.11%.

Insider & Institutional Ownership

Institutional investors owned 85.4% of Magenta Therapeutics Inc. shares and 85.61% of PTC Therapeutics Inc. shares. Insiders owned roughly 2.2% of Magenta Therapeutics Inc.s shares. Comparatively, PTC Therapeutics Inc. has 0.3% of its share owned by insiders.

Performance

In this table we show the Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, Half Yearly, Yearly and YTD Performance of both pretenders.

For the past year Magenta Therapeutics Inc.s stock price has bigger growth than PTC Therapeutics Inc.

Summary

PTC Therapeutics Inc. beats on 8 of the 11 factors Magenta Therapeutics Inc.

Magenta Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, engages in developing medicines to bring the curative power of bone marrow transplant to patients. It is developing C100, C200, and C300 targeted antibody-drug conjugates for transplant conditioning; MGTA-145, a stem cell mobilization product candidate to control stem cell mobilization; MGTA-456, an allogeneic stem cell therapy to control stem cell growth; E478, a small molecule aryl hydrocarbon receptor antagonist for the expansion of gene-modified stem cells; and G100, an ADC program to prevent acute graft and host diseases. The company was formerly known as HSCTCo Therapeutics, Inc. and changed its name to Magenta Therapeutics, Inc. in February 2016. Magenta Therapeutics, Inc. was incorporated in 2015 and is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

PTC Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the discovery, development, and commercialization of orally administered, small molecule drugs that target post-transcriptional control processes. The companys lead product is Translarna (ataluren), for the treatment of nonsense mutation Duchenne muscular dystrophy in ambulatory patients; and which is in phase III clinical trials to treat cystic fibrosis caused by nonsense mutations. It also develops Translarna, which is in Phase II clinical trials for the treatment of mucopolysaccharidosis type I caused by nonsense mutation, nonsense mutation aniridia, and nonsense mutation Dravet syndrome/CDKL5; and RG7916 that is in Phase I clinical trials to treat spinal muscular atrophy. In addition, the companys product candidate in cancer stem cell program include PTC596, an orally bioavailable and potent small molecule, which has completed phase I clinical trials that targets tumor stem cell populations by reducing the activity and amount of a protein called BMI1. PTC Therapeutics, Inc. has collaborations with F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd and Hoffman-La Roche Inc., and the Spinal Muscular Atrophy Foundation to develop and commercialize compounds identified under its spinal muscular atrophy sponsored research program; and research collaboration with Massachusetts General Hospital for the treatment of rare genetic disorders resulting from pre-mRNA. The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in South Plainfield, New Jersey.

Receive News & Ratings Via Email - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings with our FREE daily email newsletter.

More:
Reviewing Magenta Therapeutics Inc. (MGTA)'s and PTC Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:PTCT)'s results - FinanceMercury

This is therefore a comparing of the institutional ownership, earnings and valuation, profitability, risk, dividends, analyst recommendations in Capricor Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:CAPR) and Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:BCLI). The two are both Biotechnology companies that compete with one another.

Earnings and Valuation

Demonstrates Capricor Therapeutics Inc. and Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. earnings per share, top-line revenue and valuation.

Profitability

Table 2 represents Capricor Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:CAPR) and Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:BCLI)s return on assets, return on equity and net margins.

Volatility and Risk

A beta of 1.8 shows that Capricor Therapeutics Inc. is 80.00% more volatile than Standard & Poors 500. Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. has a 1.19 beta and it is 19.00% more volatile than Standard & Poors 500.

Liquidity

Capricor Therapeutics Inc.s Current Ratio and Quick Ratio are 5.3 and 5.3 respectively. The Current Ratio and Quick Ratio of its competitor Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. are 1 and 1 respectively. Capricor Therapeutics Inc. therefore has a better chance of paying off short and long-term obligations compared to Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc.

Analyst Ratings

The following table given below contains the ratings and recommendations for Capricor Therapeutics Inc. and Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc.

$11.5 is Capricor Therapeutics Inc.s average target price while its potential upside is 342.31%. Competitively Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. has a consensus target price of $9, with potential upside of 134.99%. The data from earlier shows that analysts belief suggest that Capricor Therapeutics Inc. seems more appealing than Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc.

Institutional and Insider Ownership

Capricor Therapeutics Inc. and Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. has shares owned by institutional investors as follows: 5.1% and 11.4%. Insiders owned 32.93% of Capricor Therapeutics Inc. shares. On the other hand, insiders owned about 0.6% of Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc.s shares.

Performance

Here are the Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, Half Yearly, Yearly and YTD Performance of both pretenders.

For the past year Capricor Therapeutics Inc. has weaker performance than Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc.

Summary

Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. beats on 7 of the 10 factors Capricor Therapeutics Inc.

Capricor Therapeutics, Inc., a biotechnology company, focuses on the discovery, development, and commercialization of novel therapeutics primarily for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases. The companys development stage drug candidates for cardiovascular diseases include CAP-1002 that is in Phase II clinical trials; and CAP-2003, which is in pre-clinical development for the treatment of certain cardiac and inflammatory conditions. The company was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Beverly Hills, California.

Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc., a biotechnology company, develops adult stem cell therapies for neurodegenerative disorders that include amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, Parkinsons disease, and others. The company holds rights to develop and commercialize its NurOwn technology through a licensing agreement with Ramot of Tel Aviv University Ltd. Its NurOwn technology is based on a novel differentiation protocol, which induces differentiation of the bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells into neuron-supporting cells and secreting cells that release various neurotrophic factors, including glial-derived neurotrophic factor, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, vascular endothelial growth factor, and hepatocyte growth factor for the growth, survival, and differentiation of developing neurons. The company was formerly known as Golden Hand Resources Inc. and changed its name to Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. in November 2004 to reflect its new line of business in the development of novel cell therapies for neurodegenerative diseases. Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Hackensack, New Jersey.

Receive News & Ratings Via Email - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings with our FREE daily email newsletter.

Follow this link:
Reviewing Capricor Therapeutics Inc. (CAPR)'s and Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:BCLI)'s results - FinanceMercury

A New business Strategy report released by HTF MI with title Global Live Cell Imaging Consumables Market Insights, Forecast to 2025 . This Global Live Cell Imaging Consumables market report brings data for the estimated year 2019 and forecasted till 2025 in terms of both, value (US$ MN) and volume (MT). The report also consists of forecast factors, macroeconomic factors, and a market outlook of the Live Cell Imaging Consumables market. The study is conducted using top-down and bottom-up approaches and further analyzed using analytical tools such as porters five force analysis and uncover Opportunities, Challenges, restraints, and trends of the Global Live Cell Imaging Consumables market. This report also states import/export consumption, supply and demand Figures, cost, price, revenue and gross margins. Some of the Major Companies Profiled in the reports are Carl Zeiss AG (Germany), Leica Microsystems (Germany), Nikon Corporation (Japan), Molecular Devices, LCC (U.S.), PerkinElmer, Inc. (U.S.), GE Healthcare (U.K.), Becton, Dickinson and Company (U.S.), Olympus Corporation (Japan), Sigma Aldrich Corporation (U.S.) & Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.(U.S.) etc.

Acquire Sample Report + All Related Tables & Graphs of Global Live Cell Imaging Consumables Market Study Now @ : https://www.htfmarketreport.com/sample-report/1366687-global-live-cell-imaging-consumables-market-6

If you are involved in the Live Cell Imaging Consumables industry or intend to be, then this study will provide you complete viewpoint. Its vital you keep your market knowledge up to date segmented by Applications [Cell Biology, Stem Cells, Developmental Biology & Drug Discovery], Product Types such as [, Assay Kits, Reagents, Media & Others] and some major players in the industry.

The following points are involved along with an in-depth study of each point for Live Cell Imaging Consumables Market :

Manufacture Analysis Manufacture of the Live Cell Imaging Consumables is analysed with respect to different applications, types and regions. Here, price for different key players for this market is also covered.

Resource and Consumption In extension with sales, this segment studies Resource and consumption for the Live Cell Imaging Consumables Market. Import and export data are also given in this part.

Customization is also available on the basis of client requirements :1- Free country level breakdown for any 5 countries of your choice.2- Free Competitive breakdown of any market players.3- One country of specific interest can be included at no added cost

Enquire for customization in Global Live Cell Imaging Consumables Market Report @https://www.htfmarketreport.com/enquiry-before-buy/1366687-global-live-cell-imaging-consumables-market-6

In addition, the years considered for the study are as follows:Historical year 2013-2018Base year 2018Forecast period** 2019 to 2025 [** unless otherwise stated]

**Moreover, it will also include the opportunities available in micro markets for stakeholders to invest, detailed analysis of competitive landscape and product services of key players.

Focus on segments and sub-section of the Market illuminated below:Geographical Analysis: North America, United States, Canada, Mexico, Asia-Pacific, China, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Europe, Germany, France, UK, Italy, Spain, Russia, Central & South America, Brazil, Rest of Central & South America, Middle East & Africa, GCC Countries, Turkey, Egypt & South Africa etc

On the Basis of Product Types of Live Cell Imaging Consumables Market: , Assay Kits, Reagents, Media & Others

The Study Explores the Key Applications/End-Users of Live Cell Imaging Consumables Market: Cell Biology, Stem Cells, Developmental Biology & Drug Discovery

Global Live Cell Imaging Consumables Competitive Analysis:The key players are extremely aiming innovation in fabrication skills to increase efficiency and shelf life. The best long-term growth opportunities for this sector can be captured by ensuring constant process improvements and economic flexibility to spend in the optimal schemes. Company profile section of players such as Carl Zeiss AG (Germany), Leica Microsystems (Germany), Nikon Corporation (Japan), Molecular Devices, LCC (U.S.), PerkinElmer, Inc. (U.S.), GE Healthcare (U.K.), Becton, Dickinson and Company (U.S.), Olympus Corporation (Japan), Sigma Aldrich Corporation (U.S.) & Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.(U.S.) etc. includes its basic information like legal name, website, headquarters, its market position, historical background and top 5 closest competitors by Market capitalization / revenue along with contact information.

Buy this research study Live Cell Imaging Consumables @: https://www.htfmarketreport.com/buy-now?format=1&report=1366687

Most important Highlights of TOC:1 Introduction of Live Cell Imaging ConsumablesMarket1.1 Overview of the Market1.2 Scope of Report

2 Exclusive Summary

3 Research Methodology3.1 Primary Interviews3.2 Data Mining3.3 Validation3.4 List of Statistics

4 Live Cell Imaging Consumables Market Segment & Geographic Analysis4.1 By Type [2014 -2025]4.2 By Application [2014-2025]4.3 By Region [2014-2025]

5 Live Cell Imaging Consumables Market Outlook5.1 Overview5.2 Market Dynamics5.2.1 Opportunities5.2.2 Restraints5.2.3 Drivers5.3 Porters Five Force Model5.4 Value Chain Analysis

6 Live Cell Imaging Consumables Market Competitive Landscape6.1 Overview6.2 Key Development Policies6.3 Company Market Standing

Read Detailed Index of Live Cell Imaging Consumables Market report @:https://www.htfmarketreport.com/reports/1366687-global-live-cell-imaging-consumables-market-6

Thanks for reading this article; you can also get individual chapter wise section or region wise report version like North America, Europe or Asia.

About Author:HTF Market Report is a wholly owned brand of HTF market Intelligence Consulting Private Limited. HTF Market Report global research and market intelligence consulting organization is uniquely positioned to not only identify growth opportunities but to also empower and inspire you to create visionary growth strategies for futures, enabled by our extraordinary depth and breadth of thought leadership, research, tools, events and experience that assist you for making goals into a reality. Our understanding of the interplay between industry convergence, Mega Trends, technologies and market trends provides our clients with new business models and expansion opportunities. We are focused on identifying the Accurate Forecast in every industry we cover so our clients can reap the benefits of being early market entrants and can accomplish their Goals & Objectives.

Contact US :Craig Francis (PR & Marketing Manager)HTF Market Intelligence Consulting Private LimitedUnit No. 429, Parsonage Road Edison, NJNew Jersey USA 08837Phone: +1 (206) 317 1218sales@htfmarketreport.com

Connect with us at LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter

Link:
Live Cell Imaging Consumables Market Evolving to a Next-Generation Strategy with New Partnerships, Technologies and Targets by 2023 key players LCC...

Spero Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:SPRO) and Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:BCLI), both competing one another are Biotechnology companies. We will compare their profitability, analyst recommendations, risk, dividends, earnings and valuation, institutional ownership.

Valuation & Earnings

Table 1 showcases the gross revenue, earnings per share and valuation of Spero Therapeutics Inc. and Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc.

Profitability

Table 2 has Spero Therapeutics Inc. and Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc.s return on assets, return on equity and net margins.

Liquidity

The Current Ratio and Quick Ratio of Spero Therapeutics Inc. are 17.5 and 17.5 respectively. Its competitor Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc.s Current Ratio is 1 and its Quick Ratio is 1. Spero Therapeutics Inc. can pay off short and long-term obligations better than Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc.

Analyst Recommendations

Spero Therapeutics Inc. and Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. Ratings and Recommendations are available on the next table.

Spero Therapeutics Inc.s average target price is $28, while its potential upside is 166.67%. Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. on the other hand boasts of a $9 average target price and a 134.99% potential upside. The results from earlier shows that analysts opinion suggest that Spero Therapeutics Inc. seems more appealing than Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc.

Insider & Institutional Ownership

Spero Therapeutics Inc. and Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. has shares owned by institutional investors as follows: 53.1% and 11.4%. Insiders owned roughly 23.71% of Spero Therapeutics Inc.s shares. Insiders Competitively, owned 0.6% of Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. shares.

Performance

Here are the Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, Half Yearly, Yearly and YTD Performance of both pretenders.

For the past year Spero Therapeutics Inc. was more bullish than Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc.

Summary

Spero Therapeutics Inc. beats Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. on 6 of the 11 factors.

Spero Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses on identifying, developing, and commercializing novel treatments for multi-drug resistant (MDR) bacterial infections in the United States. It is developing SPR994, an oral carbapenem-class antibiotic for use in adults to treat MDR gram-negative infections; SPR741 that has completed Phase I clinical trial to treat MDR gram-negative infections in the hospital setting; SPR206, an agent that is in preclinical development stage to disrupt the outer membrane of gram-negative bacteria; and SPR720, an oral antibiotic that is in preclinical development stage for the treatment of pulmonary non-tuberculous mycobacterial infections. The company was founded in 2013 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc., a biotechnology company, develops adult stem cell therapies for neurodegenerative disorders that include amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, Parkinsons disease, and others. The company holds rights to develop and commercialize its NurOwn technology through a licensing agreement with Ramot of Tel Aviv University Ltd. Its NurOwn technology is based on a novel differentiation protocol, which induces differentiation of the bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells into neuron-supporting cells and secreting cells that release various neurotrophic factors, including glial-derived neurotrophic factor, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, vascular endothelial growth factor, and hepatocyte growth factor for the growth, survival, and differentiation of developing neurons. The company was formerly known as Golden Hand Resources Inc. and changed its name to Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. in November 2004 to reflect its new line of business in the development of novel cell therapies for neurodegenerative diseases. Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Hackensack, New Jersey.

Receive News & Ratings Via Email - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings with our FREE daily email newsletter.

See the rest here:
Contrasting of Spero Therapeutics Inc. (SPRO) and Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:BCLI) - FinanceMercury

PTC Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:PTCT) and Jounce Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:JNCE), are influenced by compare since they are both players in the Biotechnology. These factors are particularly influence the analyst recommendations, profitability, risk, dividends, institutional ownership, earnings and valuation of the two firms.

Valuation & Earnings

Table 1 highlights PTC Therapeutics Inc. and Jounce Therapeutics Inc.s gross revenue, earnings per share and valuation.

Profitability

Table 2 shows the return on equity, return on assets and net margins of the two firms.

Liquidity

PTC Therapeutics Inc.s Current Ratio is 3.3 while its Quick Ratio is 3.2. On the competitive side is, Jounce Therapeutics Inc. which has a 2.2 Current Ratio and a 2.2 Quick Ratio. PTC Therapeutics Inc. is better positioned to pay off short and long-term obligations compared to Jounce Therapeutics Inc.

Analyst Recommendations

Ratings and Recommendations for PTC Therapeutics Inc. and Jounce Therapeutics Inc. can be find in next table.

PTC Therapeutics Inc. has a 25.42% upside potential and an average price target of $50.67.

Institutional and Insider Ownership

Institutional investors owned 85.61% of PTC Therapeutics Inc. shares and 74.2% of Jounce Therapeutics Inc. shares. PTC Therapeutics Inc.s share owned by insiders are 0.3%. Competitively, Jounce Therapeutics Inc. has 0.7% of its share owned by insiders.

Performance

In this table we provide the Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, Half Yearly, Yearly and YTD Performance of both pretenders.

For the past year PTC Therapeutics Inc.s stock price has smaller growth than Jounce Therapeutics Inc.

Summary

Jounce Therapeutics Inc. beats PTC Therapeutics Inc. on 6 of the 11 factors.

PTC Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the discovery, development, and commercialization of orally administered, small molecule drugs that target post-transcriptional control processes. The companys lead product is Translarna (ataluren), for the treatment of nonsense mutation Duchenne muscular dystrophy in ambulatory patients; and which is in phase III clinical trials to treat cystic fibrosis caused by nonsense mutations. It also develops Translarna, which is in Phase II clinical trials for the treatment of mucopolysaccharidosis type I caused by nonsense mutation, nonsense mutation aniridia, and nonsense mutation Dravet syndrome/CDKL5; and RG7916 that is in Phase I clinical trials to treat spinal muscular atrophy. In addition, the companys product candidate in cancer stem cell program include PTC596, an orally bioavailable and potent small molecule, which has completed phase I clinical trials that targets tumor stem cell populations by reducing the activity and amount of a protein called BMI1. PTC Therapeutics, Inc. has collaborations with F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd and Hoffman-La Roche Inc., and the Spinal Muscular Atrophy Foundation to develop and commercialize compounds identified under its spinal muscular atrophy sponsored research program; and research collaboration with Massachusetts General Hospital for the treatment of rare genetic disorders resulting from pre-mRNA. The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in South Plainfield, New Jersey.

Jounce Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical stage immunotherapy company, focuses on developing therapies that enable the immune system to attack tumors. Its lead product candidate, JTX-2011, is a clinical stage monoclonal antibody that binds to and activates ICOS, a protein on the surface of certain T cells commonly found in various solid tumors. The company is also developing JTX-4014, an anti-PD-1 antibody. Jounce Therapeutics, Inc. has a master research and collaboration agreement with Celgene Corporation focused on developing and commercializing biologic immunotherapies. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Receive News & Ratings Via Email - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings with our FREE daily email newsletter.

View post:
PTC Therapeutics Inc. (PTCT) and Jounce Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:JNCE) Comparing side by side - FinanceMercury

This is therefore a contrasting of the institutional ownership, profitability, risk, analyst recommendations, dividends, earnings and valuation in Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:BCLI) and HOOKIPA Pharma Inc. (NASDAQ:HOOK). The two are both Biotechnology companies that compete with one another.

Earnings and Valuation

Demonstrates Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. and HOOKIPA Pharma Inc. earnings per share (EPS), gross revenue and valuation.

Profitability

Table 2 represents Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:BCLI) and HOOKIPA Pharma Inc. (NASDAQ:HOOK)s return on assets, return on equity and net margins.

Liquidity

1 and 1 are the respective Current Ratio and a Quick Ratio of Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. Its rival HOOKIPA Pharma Inc.s Current and Quick Ratios are 5.6 and 5.6 respectively. HOOKIPA Pharma Inc. has a better chance of clearing its pay short and long-term debts than Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc.

Analyst Recommendations

Ratings and Recommendations for Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. and HOOKIPA Pharma Inc. can be find in next table.

Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. has a consensus price target of $9, and a 140.00% upside potential. On the other hand, HOOKIPA Pharma Inc.s potential upside is 124.82% and its consensus price target is $18.75. The information presented earlier suggests that Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. looks more robust than HOOKIPA Pharma Inc. as far as analyst belief.

Institutional & Insider Ownership

The shares of both Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. and HOOKIPA Pharma Inc. are owned by institutional investors at 11.4% and 35.9% respectively. Insiders owned roughly 0.6% of Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc.s shares. Comparatively, insiders own roughly 0.9% of HOOKIPA Pharma Inc.s shares.

Performance

Here are the Weekly, Monthly, Quarterly, Half Yearly, Yearly and YTD Performance of both pretenders.

For the past year Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. had bullish trend while HOOKIPA Pharma Inc. had bearish trend.

Summary

On 6 of the 11 factors Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. beats HOOKIPA Pharma Inc.

Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc., a biotechnology company, develops adult stem cell therapies for neurodegenerative disorders that include amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, Parkinsons disease, and others. The company holds rights to develop and commercialize its NurOwn technology through a licensing agreement with Ramot of Tel Aviv University Ltd. Its NurOwn technology is based on a novel differentiation protocol, which induces differentiation of the bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells into neuron-supporting cells and secreting cells that release various neurotrophic factors, including glial-derived neurotrophic factor, brain-derived neurotrophic factor, vascular endothelial growth factor, and hepatocyte growth factor for the growth, survival, and differentiation of developing neurons. The company was formerly known as Golden Hand Resources Inc. and changed its name to Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. in November 2004 to reflect its new line of business in the development of novel cell therapies for neurodegenerative diseases. Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Hackensack, New Jersey.

Receive News & Ratings Via Email - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings with our FREE daily email newsletter.

View original post here:
Contrasting of Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics Inc. (BCLI) and HOOKIPA Pharma Inc. (NASDAQ:HOOK) - MS Wkly