Merck announces data from trial studying KEYTRUDA plus Trodelvy

Merck (MRK), known as MSD outside of the United States and Canada, announced that KEYTRUDA plus Trodelvy reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 35% versus KEYTRUDA plus chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of patients with PD-L1+ inoperable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, TNBC, as determined by an FDA-approved test. KEYTRUDA, when given in combination with Gilead's TROP2 antibody-drug conjugate, ADC, Trodelvy, resulted in a median progression-free survival, PFS, of 11.2 months versus 7.8 months when KEYTRUDA was given in combination with chemotherapy. These data from the pivotal Phase 3 ASCENT-04/KEYNOTE-D19 study will be presented today as a late-breaking oral presentation at the 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology, ASCO, Annual Meeting and were selected for the official ASCO Press Program. A higher objective response rate was observed for the KEYTRUDA plus Trodelvy combination, including 13% and 8% with a complete response, respectively, in the KEYTRUDA plus Trodelvy and KEYTRUDA plus chemotherapy arms. Notably, a substantially longer duration of response was observed with KEYTRUDA plus Trodelvy. Encouraging trends in overall survival were also observed, but data are immature at the time of PFS primary analysis. Overall survival follow-up remains ongoing and will continue to be monitored as a key secondary endpoint.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time Business News

2 hours ago

• Time Business News

Your Guide to Botox and Lip Fillers in El Segundo

If you've ever looked in the mirror and thought, 'Hmm, maybe just a little boost,' you're not alone. Botox and lip fillers have become incredibly popular, especially among people who want a natural, refreshed look without surgery. In El Segundo, more and more locals are discovering the power of subtle cosmetic treatments. Whether it's smoothing out a few lines or adding volume to your lips, the right provider can make all the difference. That's why so many people are turning to this clinic, known for its careful work and personalized results. Let's clear up the myths first. Botox isn't about 'freezing your face.' It's a simple treatment that relaxes the muscles under your skin, mostly in areas where fine lines form from repeated facial expressions like frowning or smiling. It's FDA-approved and has been used safely for years. Most people use Botox to reduce lines around the forehead, between the eyebrows, and around the eyes (those 'crow's feet'). Treatments take just 10–15 minutes, and you can go back to your day right after. The results appear within a few days and can last three to four months. It's not permanent, which means you can always adjust how much or how little you want in future visits. Lip fillers are perfect if you want fuller, smoother, or more balanced lips. Most fillers today use hyaluronic acid—a substance your body already makes. It adds volume and shape in a way that feels soft and natural. You don't need to go for an over-the-top look. In fact, many people use fillers to correct asymmetry or just add a touch of definition. The procedure usually takes under 30 minutes, and results are immediate. Swelling may happen for a day or two, but it's usually mild. With proper care, lip fillers can last from 6 months to a full year. Most adults are good candidates, but your provider will always check your medical history to make sure it's safe for you. These treatments are great for: ● People see early signs of aging ● Anyone wanting subtle improvements ● Those preparing for events like weddings or reunions ● People who want to boost their confidence What's important is going to a qualified injector. You don't want just anyone putting a needle in your face. A licensed expert knows how to enhance your natural features, not change them. If it's your first time, don't worry. Most clinics make the process easy and comfortable. Here's how it usually works: 1. Consultation: You'll talk about what you want, ask questions, and get expert advice. 2. Prep: The provider may mark the treatment areas and apply a numbing cream if needed. 3. Injection: It takes just minutes to do the actual injections. 4. Aftercare: You'll get tips on how to avoid swelling or bruising, like skipping alcohol or heavy workouts for a day. You may be surprised by how quick and simple the whole thing is. Myth 1: Botox and fillers are only for older people. Truth: Many younger people use these treatments to prevent lines before they form. Myth 2: You'll look fake or 'done.' Truth: When done right, the results look natural and fresh—not frozen or overfilled. Myth 3: It's super painful. Truth: Most people say it feels like a tiny pinch or quick sting. Plus, numbing options help. Don't just look at price—look at experience and reputation. Read reviews. Check before-and-after photos. Ask how many years they've been doing this work. A great provider listens, explains clearly, and never pressures you into getting more than you need. Also, make sure the place is clean, licensed, and uses approved products. You deserve the best care for your face. Getting Botox or lip fillers or any form of cosmetic help isn't about changing who you are. It's about feeling confident in your skin and doing something for you . Whether you're after smoother skin or fuller lips, a little enhancement can go a long way when done right. Ready to explore your options in El Segundo? A good first step is booking a consultation and asking questions. You'll be amazed at how small changes can lead to a big boost in self-esteem. TIME BUSINESS NEWS

The Hill

14 hours ago

• The Hill

Food and Drug Administration staff cuts may hinder US biomedical innovation

President Trump has rightly emphasized restoring America's economic and strategic independence — from reshoring pharmaceutical production to cutting regulatory red tape. But not all reforms are created equal. Recent restructuring efforts at the Food and Drug Administration may have been well-intentioned, but they risk undermining the very innovation and domestic capacity the president seeks to promote. In March, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced a sweeping reorganization of the agency, which in part included the elimination of 3,500 full-time employees at the Food and Drug Administration — many of them senior scientific staff and experienced regulators who served as institutional pillars across drug review divisions. While we all support government efficiency and the secretary's efforts to create a gold-standard regulatory agency, the loss of this institutional memory risks hobbling the expedited pathways that small biotech firms rely on to deliver therapies for rare and life-threatening diseases. Unfortunately, the impact of these cuts is not theoretical. The Wall Street Journal has reported that some biotech firms have had to delay or cancel clinical trials due to lack of timely Food and Drug Administration guidance. One California biotech firm facing unpredictable delays has even turned to European regulators to move forward with a clinical trial — effectively offshoring American capital, investment and jobs. Others have reported receiving conflicting and confusing feedback from inexperienced FDA staff or no response at all on time-sensitive requests. But such issues don't just affect companies; they hurt patients, too. Innovation in gene therapies, cancer immunotherapies, and treatments for rare diseases depend on regulatory clarity and speed. Without senior staff to help clarify agency positions, decisions are either delayed or driven by less-experienced personnel unfamiliar with long-standing scientific standards. It's no surprise then that over 200 biotech CEOs, patient advocates and investors — many of them strong supporters of FDA modernization — have expressed their concerns in a letter to Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy (R-La.). As a former member of Congress who sat on the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the FDA, I have long supported targeted reforms to make the agency more nimble and responsive. But there is a fine line between streamlining operations and cutting the institutional capacity necessary to do the job. Removing experienced drug reviewers before an adequate backup plan can be put into place not only jeopardizes U.S. safety standards but also undermines our competitive edge. This matter is not merely a domestic problem; it's a global race. Since 2014, the number of biomedical drugs under development in China has grown twelvefold. Meanwhile, innovation in the U.S. has remained relatively flat. If trends continue, China could match or surpass the U.S. in biomedical innovation within the decade. We have seen this movie before — in semiconductors, in telecommunications, in clean energy. We cannot afford to let biotech go the same way. The Trump administration's tariff policy was designed to bring pharmaceutical manufacturing back to U.S. shores. But how can we expect capital to stay in the U.S. if our regulatory infrastructure cannot deliver? Delays and unpredictability at the FDA don't just slow down science — they push investors to look elsewhere. Even the user fee system — critical to funding timely drug reviews and a source of government revenue — has been impacted by the reduction in force. Staff who oversaw the reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act have been laid off, raising questions about whether the agency will even be able to continue to collect user fees and whether these government cuts will actually end up costing taxpayers in the long run. Of course, Kennedy has long been a vocal advocate for health reform. His Make America Healthy Again agenda's focus on combatting chronic diseases and enhancing nutritional standards deserves attention. His focus for such reform is where his background and passion can lead to meaningful improvements. But when it comes to regulating complex biologics and therapeutics, we must be careful about taking actions that could inadvertently stymie scientific progress. President Trump's vision for American self-reliance will only succeed if it's built on a foundation of regulatory competence and stability. Swift actions should therefore be taken to restore the FDA's core functions, rehire critical staff and unfreeze the hiring of roles essential to America's leadership in biomedical science. The stakes — for patients, for innovation and for national security — are simply too high to ignore. John T. Doolittle is a former member of Congress who served on the Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA, and Related Agencies subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations.

The Hill

15 hours ago

• The Hill

Thanks to imported drugs, America has lost control of its medicine cabinet

America is facing a growing crisis in its medical system — not from a lack of talent or innovation, but from a breakdown in the control, safety and supply of essential medicines. Our growing reliance on imports is now driving serious drug shortages, destabilizing supply chains and increasingly making medications unsafe. At the root of it is a hard truth: We no longer have control of the medicines we depend on every day. In 2002, America manufactured 83.7 percent of the pharmaceuticals it consumed. By 2024, that number had dropped to just 37.1 percent. Meanwhile, the U.S. pharmaceutical trade deficit has soared, reaching a record $118.3 billion in 2024. We didn't just outsource manufacturing — we outsourced the sovereignty and safety of our health care system. This means that nearly two-thirds of America's pharmaceutical supplies are now imported. Most critical medications, such as generic drugs, now come from China and India. China controls 80 to 90 percent of the global supply of active pharmaceutical ingredients — the chemical building blocks of modern medicine. Even drugs labeled 'Made in the USA' often chemically originate in China. And India, which produces about half of America's finished generic drugs, relies on China for up to 80 percent of its active pharmaceutical not a supply chain — it's a ticking time something goes wrong, American patients suffer. In 2023, the Food and Drug Administration shut down a single Indian plant responsible for 50 percent of the U.S. supply of cisplatin, a critical chemotherapy drug, after uncovering a 'cascade of failure' in safety practices and shredded documents soaked in acid. With no domestic backup, patients nationwide had their treatments delayed. That wasn't a fluke. 40 percent of U.S. generic drugs have only one FDA-approved manufacturer. Because of that single chokepoint, when one factory fails, the whole system can crack. We are now seeing widespread drug shortages across the medical system. Hospital pharmacists report an average of 301 critical drug shortages at any given time. And 85 percent say these shortages are moderately or critically affecting care. Doctors often lack crucial medicines such as antibiotics, sedatives and cancer drugs. These aren't obscure drugs. They're foundational medicines. But America no longer makes them. Even when imported drugs do arrive, they're not always safe. A 2025 study found that Indian generics are 54 percent more likely to cause serious side effects than their U.S.-made counterparts. Indian factory violations have also been tied to at least eight U.S. patient deaths. China's record is equally disturbing. In 2008, dozens of Americans died after receiving contaminated heparin from Chinese suppliers. This isn't what the American people want. In a national survey, 85 percent of hospital pharmacists said they would pay more for safer generics. But under today's rules, price overshadows quality. Hospitals have little oversight of drug quality — and foreign producers face few consequences for cutting corners. Even the federal government is flying blind. A 2023 Department of Defense review found that 22 percent of essential military-use drugs had unknown ingredient sourcing. That's a national security April, the Trump administration took a necessary step by launching an investigation into generic pharmaceutical imports that correctly frames the issue as a national security threat. But that recognition alone isn't enough. To address this crisis, Washington should impose targeted tariffs on generic drugs from adversarial nations. It must also rebuild domestic pharmaceutical production through tax credits and long-term contracts. America urgently needs full transparency in drug labeling to disclose where drugs and their ingredients are made. The FDA must step up — with stronger enforcement abroad and a ban on imports from repeat safety violators. And to secure critical ingredients during market disruptions, Washington must pursue a long-term vision that includes a 'strategic pharmaceutical reserve.' This isn't just protectionism. It's a restoration of America's medical security. No nation can call itself sovereign if it can't produce its own medicines, and no patient is safe if their health care depends on quality control in a factory 8,000 miles decades, we were told that offshoring production would make things cheaper, smoother and more efficient. But America can no longer depend on unstable foreign suppliers. It's time to restore our pharmaceutical independence and take back control of our medicine cabinet. Andrew Rechenberg is an economist at the Coalition for a Prosperous America.