Category: 3. Business

  • Kirkland Advises Macquarie Asset Management on $711 Million Close of Macquarie Alliance Partners Infrastructure Fund | News

    Kirkland & Ellis represented Macquarie Asset Management on the final close of Macquarie Alliance Partners Infrastructure Fund, with $711 million in total commitments, including main fund and separately managed account capital commitments. Macquarie Alliance Partners Infrastructure Fund is Macquarie Asset Management’s inaugural infrastructure secondaries fund. Focused on creating a diversified portfolio, the fund emphasizes targeting high-quality assets, sectors and fund managers. The transaction was announced July 28, 2025.

    Read the transaction press release

    The Kirkland team included investment funds lawyers Matt Nadworny, Ian Jelsma and Erica Berthou.

    Continue Reading

  • Clean energy is here. Getting it to EVs isn’t : For Journalists

    Clean energy is here. Getting it to EVs isn’t : For Journalists

    • Renewable energy is growing, but it’s often remote from EV charging stations
    • Delivering clean energy through the current grid is limited by grid congestion
    • Without grid upgrades, EVs will still rely on fossil fuel-generated energy
    • Smart, targeted upgrades could solve grid congestion to unlock EVs’ potential

    EVANSTON, Ill. — Even if enough renewable energy is available, simply switching from gas-powered cars to electric vehicles (EVs) won’t be enough to fight climate change — unless the U.S. also upgrades its transmission grid, a new Northwestern University study finds. 

    If every gas-powered vehicle in the U.S. were replaced by an EV, transmission constraints would prevent the cleanest available electricity from reaching many charging locations. This “grid congestion” would force greater reliance on nearby fossil fuel power plants, undercutting the emissions benefits of electrification.

    After identifying the issue, the study also recommends a modest set of targeted transmission grid upgrades to alleviate congestion and unlock the full emissions-reduction potential of EV adoption.  

    The study was published today (Aug. 6) in the journal Nature Communications.

    “Even if the U.S. fully adopts EVs and generates enough renewable electricity to charge them, it still won’t be enough,” said Northwestern’s Adilson Motter, who led the study. “We found the limiting factor for cars to be powered by clean energy has less to do with the availability of renewable energy and more to do with the ability to transmit that energy from generation sites to where it’s needed. The power lines are congested, and that leads to congestion-induced CO2 emissions.” 

    An expert on complex systems, Motter is the Charles E. and Emma H. Morrison Professor of Physics at Northwestern’s Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences and the director of the Center for Network Dynamics. Motter conducted the research with Chao Duan, a former Research Assistant Professor at Northwestern.

    The grid gets in the way 

    Like a highway system, the power grid is a vast infrastructure that transmits electricity across the U.S. After being generated at plants, electricity travels long distances through high-voltage transmission lines that span entire states and regions. It then reaches substations, where its voltage is reduced. Power then flows through distribution lines to homes, businesses and EV charging stations. 

    To analyze electricity’s journey through power lines, the researchers combined data on vehicle usage and power grid infrastructure. Using advanced computer models, the team simulated the flow of electricity across the U.S. under varying levels of vehicle electrification and renewable energy generation

    In every scenario with high EV adoption, grid congestion emerged as a critical bottleneck.

    As EV adoption increases, so does electricity demand, especially in urban areas. But renewable energy sources like wind and solar are typically located far from cities, such as on rural wind farms or solar arrays in the desert. While clean energy is available, transmission capacity is often too limited to deliver it where it is needed, including EV charging stations. As a result, the grid draws electricity from closer — but more polluting — power plants that generate electricity by burning coal, oil and gas.

    In the study’s most ambitious simulation, scientists converted the entire U.S. vehicle fleet to electric. If the grid had adequate transmission capacity, this shift could eliminate nearly all vehicle-related CO2 emissions once renewable energy matches nonrenewable energy generation. But, with current grid constraints, one-third of those potential emissions savings would be lost.

    “The charging schedule of EVs can be optimized to align with intermittent renewable generation,” Motter said. “But even with smart charging, efficient use of clean energy still depends on having enough transmission capacity to deliver it where it’s needed.”

    Smart, targeted upgrades

    To address this bottleneck, the researchers calculated how much additional transmission capacity would be needed. They found that increasing the existing grid’s transmission capacity by as little as 3 to 13% would significantly reduce congestion. This could involve building new high-voltage lines or expanding existing ones — enabling more clean power from remote wind and solar farms to reach the cities and suburbs where EV charging demand is highest.

    Motter stresses that the entire grid does not need to be rebuilt. Instead, he recommends targeted upgrades in areas where congestions are most likely to occur. The U.S. grid is divided into three largely independent regions — Eastern, Western and Texas — with limited ability to transfer power among them. Improved connections and coordination among regions would help clean energy reach the areas that need it most.

    “Power grids began as local networks, where consumption was close to generation,” Motter said. “Over time, they evolved into nationwide — even continent-wide — systems. It was a gradual growth process built on existing infrastructure. No one wants to redesign it from scratch, but we do need targeted upgrades that reflect the large-scale reach of today’s grid.”

    The study, “Grid congestion stymies climate benefit from U.S. vehicle electrification,” was supported by Leslie and Mac McQuown through the Center for Engineering Sustainability and Resilience, a Resnick Award from the Paula M. Trienens Institute for Sustainability and Energy and the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

    Continue Reading

  • Time-of-day of infection: impact on liver stage malaria parasites in untreated and drug-treated hosts | Parasites & Vectors

    Time-of-day of infection: impact on liver stage malaria parasites in untreated and drug-treated hosts | Parasites & Vectors

  • Haus EL, Smolensky MH. Shift work and cancer risk: potential mechanistic roles of circadian disruption, light at night, and sleep deprivation. Sleep Med Rev. 2013;17:273–84.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheiermann C, Gibbs J, Ince L, Loudon A. Clocking in to immunity. Nat Rev Immunol. 2018;18:423–37.

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs J, Ince L, Matthews L, Mei J, Bell T, Yang N, et al. An epithelial circadian clock controls pulmonary inflammation and glucocorticoid action. Nat Med. 2014;20:919–26.

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis AM, Bellet MM, Sassone-Corsi P, O’Neill LA. Circadian clock proteins and immunity. Immunity. 2014;40:178–86.

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Borrmann H, McKeating JA, Zhuang X. The circadian clock and viral infections. J Biol Rhythms. 2021;36:9–22.

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Westwood ML, O’Donnell AJ, Bekker Cd, Lively CM, Zuk M, Reece SE. The evolutionary ecology of circadian rhythms in infection. Nat Ecol Evol. 2019;3:552–60.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiessling S, Dubeau-Laramée G, Ohm H, Labrecque N, Olivier M, Cermakian N. The circadian clock in immune cells controls the magnitude of Leishmania parasite infection. Sci Rep. 2017;7:10892.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell AJ, Schneider P, McWatters HG, Reece SE. Fitness costs of disrupting circadian rhythms in malaria parasites. Proc Biol Sci. 2011;278:2429–36.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Prior KF, van der Veen DR, O’Donnell AJ, Cumnock K, Schneider D, Pain A, et al. Timing of host feeding drives rhythms in parasite replication. PLoS Pathog. 2018;14:e1006900.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirako IC, Assis PA, Hojo-Souza NS, Reed G, Nakaya H, Golenbock DT, et al. Daily rhythms of TNFα expression and food intake regulate synchrony of Plasmodium stages with the host circadian cycle. Cell Host Microbe. 2018;23:796–808.

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellet MM, Deriu E, Liu JZ, Grimaldi B, Blaschitz C, Zeller M, et al. Circadian clock regulates the host response to Salmonella. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:9897–902.

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundy SR, Ahmad T, Simoneaux T, Benyeogor I, Robinson Y, George Z, et al. Effect of time of day of infection on Chlamydia infectivity and pathogenesis. Sci Rep. 2019;9:11405.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagnidze K, Hajdarovic KH, Moskalenko M, Karatsoreos IN, McEwen BS, Bulloch K. Nuclear receptor REV-ERBα mediates circadian sensitivity to mortality in murine vesicular stomatitis virus-induced encephalitis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113:5730–5.

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee JE, Edery I. Circadian regulation in the ability of Drosophila to combat pathogenic infections. Curr Biol. 2008;18:195–9.

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Edgar RS, Stangherlin A, Nagy AD, Nicoll MP, Efstathiou S, O’Neill JS, et al. Cell autonomous regulation of herpes and influenza virus infection by the circadian clock. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113:10085–90.

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsuzawa T, Nakamura Y, Ogawa Y, Ishimaru K, Goshima F, Shimada S, et al. Differential day-night outcome to HSV-2 cutaneous infection. J Invest Dermatol. 2018;138:233–6.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees H, Rzechorzek NM, Dodd AN, Hodge JJL, Stevenson TJ, Mv S, et al. BioClocksUK: driving robust cycles of discovery to impact. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2025;380:20230345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sougoufara S, Diedhiou SM, Doucoure S, Diagne N, Sembene PM, Harry M, et al. Biting by Anopheles funestus in broad daylight after use of long-lasting insecticidal nets: a new challenge to malaria elimination. Malar J. 2014;13:125.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Moiroux N, Gomez MB, Pennetier C, Elanga E, Djenontin A, Chandre F, et al. Changes in Anopheles funestus biting behavior following universal coverage of long-lasting insecticidal nets in Benin. J Infect Dis. 2012;206:1622–9.

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Sangbakembi-Ngounou C, Costantini C, Longo-Pendy NM, Ngoagouni C, Akone-Ella O, Rahola N, et al. Diurnal biting of malaria mosquitoes in the Central African Republic indicates residual transmission may be “out of control.” Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2022;119:e2104282119.

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherrard-Smith E, Skarp JE, Beale AD, Fornadel C, Norris LC, Moore SJ, et al. Mosquito feeding behavior and how it influences residual malaria transmission across Africa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2019;116:15086–95.

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawking F, Worms MJ, Gammage K. 24- and 48-hour cycles of malaria parasites in the blood; their purpose, production and control. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1968;62:731–65.

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider P, Rund SSC, Smith NL, Prior KF, O’Donnell AJ, Reece SE. Adaptive periodicity in the infectivity of malaria gametocytes to mosquitoes. Proc Biol Sci. 2018;285:20181876.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Habtewold T, Tapanelli S, Masters EKG, Windbichler N, Christophides GK. The circadian clock modulates Anopheles gambiae infection with Plasmodium falciparum. PLoS ONE. 2022;17:e0278484.

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Pigeault R, Caudron Q, Nicot A, Rivero A, Gandon S. Timing malaria transmission with mosquito fluctuations. Evol Lett. 2018;2:378–89.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Bento I, Parrington B, Pascual R, Goldberg AS, Wang E, Liu H, et al. Parasite and vector circadian clocks mediate efficient malaria transmission. Nat Microbiol. 2025;10:882–96.

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Ezema CA, Okagu IU, Ezeorba TPC. Escaping the enemy’s bullets: an update on how malaria parasites evade host immune response. Parasitol Res. 2023;122:1715–31.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang R, Lahens NF, Ballance HI, Hughes ME, Hogenesch JB. A circadian gene expression atlas in mammals: implications for biology and medicine. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111:16219–24.

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokkan KA, Yamazaki S, Tei H, Sakaki Y, Menaker M. Entrainment of the circadian clock in the liver by feeding. Science. 2001;291:490–3.

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell AJ, Prior KF, Reece SE. Host circadian clocks do not set the schedule for the within-host replication of malaria parasites. Proc Biol Sci. 2020;287:20200347.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Owolabi ATY, Reece SE, Schneider P. Daily rhythms of both host and parasite affect antimalarial drug efficacy. Evol Med Public Health. 2021;9:208–19.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Platon L, Leroy D, Fidock DA, Ménard D. Drug-induced stress mediates Plasmodium falciparum ring-stage growth arrest and reduces in vitro parasite susceptibility to artemisinin. Microbiol Spectr. 2024;12:e0350023.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Teuscher F, Gatton ML, Chen N, Peters J, Kyle DE, Cheng Q. Artemisinin-induced dormancy in Plasmodium falciparum: duration, recovery rates, and implications in treatment failure. J Infect Dis. 2010;202:1362–8.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker MS, Mutka T, Sparks K, Patel J, Kyle DE. Phenotypic and genotypic analysis of in vitro selected artemisinin-resistant progeny of Plasmodium falciparum. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56:302–14.

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakazawa S, Maoka T, Uemura H, Ito Y, Kanbara H. Malaria parasites giving rise to recrudescence in vitro. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2002;46:958–65.

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Roques M, Bindschedler A, Beyeler R, Heussler VT. Same, same but different: exploring Plasmodium cell division during liver stage development. PLOS Pathog. 2023;19:e1011210.

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Vvd V, Riede SJ, Gorter JA, Eijer WG, Sellix MT, Menaker M, et al. Cold and hunger induce diurnality in a nocturnal mammal. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111:15256–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman MD, Mihaly GW, Edwards G, Ward SA, Howells RE, Breckenridge AM. Pyrimethamine pharmacokinetics and its tissue localization in mice: effect of dose size. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1985;37:170–4.

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell AJ, Reece SE. Ecology of asynchronous asexual replication: the intraerythrocytic development cycle of Plasmodium berghei is resistant to host rhythms. Malar J. 2021;20:105.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho Cabral P, Weinerman J, Olivier M, Cermakian N. Time of day and circadian disruption influence host response and parasite growth in a mouse model of cerebral malaria. iScience. 2024;27:109684.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence PJ, Jarra W, Lévy P, Nahrendorf W, Langhorne J. Mosquito transmission of the rodent malaria parasite Plasmodium chabaudi. Malar J. 2012;11:e407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foley DH, Harrison G, Murphy JR, Dowler M, Rueda LM, Wilkerson RC. Mosquito bisection as a variable in estimates of PCR-derived malaria sporozoite rates. Malar J. 2012;11:145.

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Pichugin A, Krzych U. Detection of Plasmodium berghei and Plasmodium yoelii liver-stage parasite burden by quantitative real-time PCR. New York: Humana Press; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfaffl MW. A new mathematical model for relative quantification in real-time RT-PCR. Nucleid Acids Res. 2001;29:e45.

    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen H, Rangasamy M, Tan SY, Wang H, Siegfried BD. Evaluation of five methods for total DNA extraction from western corn rootworm beetles. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e11963.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell AS, Blanford S, Jenkins N, Thomas MB, Read AF. Real-time quantitative PCR for analysis of candidate fungal biopesticides against malaria: technique validation and first applications. J Invertebr Pathol. 2009;100:160–8.

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Churcher TS, Sinden RE, Edwards NJ, Poulton ID, Rampling TW, Brock PM, et al. Probability of transmission of malaria from mosquito to human is regulated by mosquito parasite density in naïve and vaccinated hosts. PLoS Pathog. 2017;13:e1006108.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Andolina C, Graumans W, Guelbeogo M, van Gemert GJ, Ramjith J, Harouna S, et al. Quantification of sporozoite expelling by Anopheles mosquitoes infected with laboratory and naturally circulating P falciparum gametocytes. Elife. 2024;12:90989.

    Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 4.3.0 ed: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.; 2023.

  • Anderson DR, Burnham KP. Avoiding pitfalls when using information-theoretic methods. J Wildl Manag. 2002;66:912–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prior KF, Middleton B, Owolabi ATY, Westwood ML, Holland J, O’Donnell AJ, et al. Synchrony between daily rhythms of malaria parasites and hosts is driven by an essential amino acid. Wellcome Open Res. 2021;6:186.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta S, Tang SY, Devine JC, Anderson ST, Nayak S, Zhang SL, et al. Circadian control of lung inflammation in influenza infection. Nat Comm. 2019;10:4107.

    Google Scholar 

  • March S, Nerurkar N, Jain A, Andrus L, Kim D, Whittaker CA, et al. Autonomous circadian rhythms in the human hepatocyte regulate hepatic drug metabolism and inflammatory responses. Sci Adv. 2024;10:9281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomes PS, Bhardwaj J, Rivera-Correa J, Freire-De-Lima CG, Morrot A. Immune escape strategies of malaria parasites. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:1617.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahree A, Mello-Vieira J, Mota MM. The nutrient games – Plasmodium metabolism during hepatic development. Trends Parasitol. 2023;39:445–60.

    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Chora ÂF, Mota MM, Prudêncio M. The reciprocal influence of the liver and blood stages of the malaria parasite’s life cycle. Int J Parasitol. 2022;52:711–5.

    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  • Rund SSC, Hou TY, Ward SM, Collins FH, Duffield GE. Genome-wide profiling of diel and circadian gene expression in the malaria vector Anopheles gambiae. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:E421–30.

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleicher TR, Yang J, Freudzon M, Rembisz A, Craft S, Hamilton M, et al. A mosquito salivary gland protein partially inhibits Plasmodium sporozoite cell traversal and transmission. Nat Comm. 2018;9:2908.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora G, Chuang YM, Sinnis P, Dimopoulos G, Fikrig E. Malaria: influence of Anopheles mosquito saliva on Plasmodium infection. Trends Immunol. 2023;44:256–65.

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell AJ, Rund SSC, Reece SE. Time-of-day of blood-feeding: effects on mosquito life history and malaria transmission. Parasit Vectors. 2019;12:301.

    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogale HN, Pascini TV, Kanatani S, Sá JM, Wellems TE, Sinnis P, et al. Transcriptional heterogeneity and tightly regulated changes in gene expression during Plasmodium berghei sporozoite development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2021;118:e2023438118.

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

Continue Reading

  • Virgin Galactic Announces Second Quarter 2025 Financial Results and Provides Business Update – Virgin Galactic

    Virgin Galactic Announces Second Quarter 2025 Financial Results and Provides Business Update – Virgin Galactic

    1. Virgin Galactic Announces Second Quarter 2025 Financial Results and Provides Business Update  Virgin Galactic
    2. Virgin Galactic to Delay First Spaceplane Flight to Fall 2026  Bloomberg.com
    3. SPCE: Earnings Anticipation Grows — But $13B Safety Disclosure Lawsuit Still Haunts Virgin Galactic  TradingView
    4. Virgin Galactic Reveals Timeline for First Commercial Space Flights as $508M War Chest Backs 2026 Tourism Launch  Stock Titan
    5. Is Virgin Galactic (SPCE) a Good Stock to Buy before Earnings?  TipRanks

    Continue Reading

  • CPO prices likely to remain steady

    CPO prices likely to remain steady

    PETALING JAYA: Crude palm oil (CPO) prices are facing renewed pressure as stockpiles climb to a 19-month high, raising concerns over the earnings outlook for plantation players.

    Regardless, analysts foresee prices to remain elevated between RM3,800 and RM4,500 per tonne for the rest of 2025.

    CPO futures were trading at RM4,220 per tonne at market close, according to Bloomberg data.

    While prices have declined year-to-date, they have gradually recovered since early May, when the contract was trading at RM3,772 per tonne.

    The stronger performance comes even as Malaysian palm oil reserves are estimated to have surged nearly 10% a month earlier to around 2.23 million tonnes in July, the highest level in 19 months.

    Speaking to StarBiz, Malaysia Palm Oil Association chief executive Roslin Azmy Hassan acknowledged the jump in inventory levels is weakening market sentiment, particularly as the July stockpile was recorded to be the highest since December 2023.

    Roslin shared that the high inventory level was driven by stronger output and weaker demand. “CPO production in July rose by around 8% compared to June, supported by improved weather, enhanced harvesting efficiency and seasonal yield recovery,” he said.

    “However, export growth was not strong enough to match supply. Key buyers like India and China reduced buying due to comfortable stock levels and more competitive pricing from Indonesia,” he added.

    Looking ahead, Roslin said the inventory buildup could persist over the next two months. “The high inventory scenario is expected to persist until at least October 2025, coinciding with the seasonal peak production period.

    “Unless there are major weather disruptions or a sharp demand recovery, stock levels may only begin to ease in the fourth quarter,” he added.

    CIMB Securities head of research Ivy Ng Lee Fang shared a similar outlook, saying CPO inventories are likely to remain high in the near term. “We expect the CPO price to trade between RM3,800 and RM4,300 per tonne,” she said.

    Ng added that the downside would be cushioned by slower palm oil output growth and stronger biodiesel demand in Indonesia, while the upside is capped by rising stock levels.

    She pointed out that two key developments to watch are whether Indonesia raises its biodiesel blend from B40 to B45 or B50, and whether the United States increases its biodiesel incentives.

    She also flagged potential risks from weather conditions.

    “For example, the recent severe haze condition in Indonesia could affect palm oil supply if it prolongs,” she said.

    BIMB Securities analyst Saffa Amanina echoed the near-term cautious tone, citing elevated stockpiles that are likely to remain above two million tonnes through September.

    “We expect CPO prices to remain under pressure in the near term due to elevated inventory levels, which are likely to stay above two million tonnes through September,” she said.

    She said this was due to seasonal peak production in both Malaysia and Indonesia, alongside the upcoming soybean harvest in the United States, which may weigh on sentiment across the broader vegetable oil market.

    “We estimate that CPO prices could temporarily soften, with downside risk to briefly dip to RM3,700 per tonne,” she said.

    Still, she believes the decline will be limited by restocking demand from India ahead of Deepavali.

    Amanina projects that prices will recover towards the year-end, trading between RM4,100 and RM4,200 per tonne, supported by monsoon-related supply disruptions.

    She added that price pressures could also stem from the narrowing CPO-soybean oil price gap, in-house expectation of a stronger ringgit, and a wider palm oil-gas oil spread, which may reduce biodiesel blending incentives.

    Potential support, on the other hand, may come from changes in US biofuel targets and European restocking ahead of the European Union’s deforestation regulation.

    While most experts are cautious in the short term, some are less concerned. A former Malaysian palm oil executive downplayed fears of oversupply, saying the current stockpile levels are not unusually high.

    “While end stocks are at 2.2 to 2.3 million tonnes, it is not really high. The market has just gotten used to seeing below two million tonnes. This level should be seen as neutral and I don’t expect prices to react dramatically,” he said.

    He pointed out that the supply situation may appear elevated on paper, but regional consumption patterns are shifting.

    For instance, Indonesia has been using more of its palm oil locally, leaving less for export. “The market is not exactly overflowing,” he said.

    While he expects the current situation to linger for a bit, he remains bullish that prices will hold steady.

    Looking ahead, the palm oil expert said several factors could influence the market in the second half of 2025, including production trends in both Malaysia and Indonesia, developments in the biodiesel segment, and policy decisions from the United States.

    “The market is expecting a big peak in production, but I remain cautiously optimistic. My pragmatism tells me it may not be as high as anticipated,” he said.

    He added that while Indonesia’s biodiesel blending hit a strong 95% realisation rate in the first half of the year, there have been some hiccups recently.

    “If blending volumes dip, we could see prices take a hit,” he said, noting that the industry is also keeping a close watch on the rollout of the B50 biodiesel programme.

    Meanwhile, the upcoming announcement of the US Renewable Volume Obligations could also play a role in shaping global vegetable oil demand.

    “While end stocks might look steady, these factors could still keep the market lively. I would like to think of it as a steady raft with a few interesting currents,” he said.

    On pricing, he expects CPO prices to remain firm in the near term, trading within a favourable range of RM4,100 to RM4,500 per tonne.

    “I’m looking at plus or minus 5%, but if there are other intertwined factors interplaying, then we can raise it to plus or minus 10%,” he said.

    Continue Reading

  • Kulicke & Soffa Reports Third Quarter 2025 Results

    SINGAPORE, Aug. 6, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — Kulicke and Soffa Industries, Inc. (NASDAQ: KLIC) (“Kulicke & Soffa,” “K&S,” “our,” or the “Company”), today announced financial results of its third fiscal quarter ended June 28, 2025. The Company reported third quarter net revenue of $148.4 million, net loss of $3.3 million, representing EPS of $(0.06) per fully diluted share, and non-GAAP net income of $3.8 million, representing non-GAAP EPS of $0.07 per fully diluted share.

    Quarterly Results – U.S. GAAP

    Fiscal Q3 2025

    Change vs. Fiscal Q3 2024

    Change vs. Fiscal Q2 2025

    Net Revenue

    $148.4 million

    down 18.3%

    down 8.4%

    Gross Margin

    46.7 %

    up 10 bps

    up 2180 bps

    Loss from Operations

    $(6.1) million

    down 173.6%

    up 92.8%

    Operating Margin

    (4.1) %

    down 870 bps

    up 4820 bps

    Net Loss

    $(3.3) million

    down 126.8%

    up 96.1%

    Net Margin

    (2.2) %

    down 900 bps

    up 5000 bps

    EPS – Diluted

    $(0.06)

    down 127.3%

    up 96.2%

    Quarterly Results – Non-GAAP

    Fiscal Q3 2025

    Change vs. Fiscal Q3 2024

    Change vs. Fiscal Q2 2025

    Income from Operations

    $1.6 million

    down 90.0%

    up 105.8%

    Operating Margin

    1.1 %

    down 760 bps

    up 1800 bps

    Net Income

    $3.8 million

    down 80.5%

    up 113.5%

    Net Margin

    2.5 %

    down 810 bps

    up 1970 bps

    EPS – Diluted

    $0.07

    down 80.0%

    up 113.5%

    A reconciliation between the GAAP and non-GAAP adjusted results is provided in the financial tables included at the end of this press release. See also the “Use of non-GAAP Financial Results” section of this press release.

    Fusen Chen, Kulicke & Soffa’s President and Chief Executive Officer, stated, “We continue to execute on multiple technology transitions supported by parallel customer engagements. As we expand our portfolio, we are unlocking new opportunities across general semiconductor, memory, automotive, and industrial markets. Additionally, we are encouraged by positive market feedback of our latest solutions and also by recent order momentum within our highest-volume regions.”

    Third Quarter Fiscal 2025 Financial Highlights

    • Net revenue of $148.4 million.
    • Gross margin of 46.7%.
    • Net loss of $3.3 million or $(0.06) per share; non-GAAP net income of $3.8 million or $0.07 per fully diluted share.
    • GAAP cash flow from operations of $7.4 million; Adjusted free cash flow of $5.4 million.
    • Cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments were $556.5 million as of June 28, 2025.
    • The Company repurchased a total of $0.7 million shares of common stock at a cost of $21.6 million.

    Fourth Quarter Fiscal 2025 Outlook

    K&S currently expects net revenue in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2025 ending October 4, 2025 to be approximately $170 million +/- $10 million, GAAP diluted EPS to be approximately $0.08 +/- 10%, and non-GAAP diluted EPS to be approximately $0.22 +/- 10%.

    A reconciliation between the GAAP and non-GAAP financial outlook is provided in the financial tables included at the end of this press release.

    Earnings Conference Webcast

    A webcast to discuss these results will be held on August 6, 2025, beginning at 4:30 pm ET. The live webcast link, supplemental earnings presentation, and archived webcast will be available at investor.kns.com. To access the audio-only portion of the live webcast, parties may call +1-877-407-8037, or internationally, +1-201-689-8037.

    An audio-only replay of the webcast will also be available approximately one hour after the completion of the live call by calling +1-877-660-6853, or internationally, +1-201-612-7415 and referencing access code 13750875.

    Use of Non-GAAP Financial Results

    In addition to U.S. GAAP (“GAAP”) results, this press release also contains the following non-GAAP financial results: income from operations, operating margin, net income, net margin, net income per fully diluted share and adjusted free cash flow. The Company’s non-GAAP results exclude amortization related to intangible assets acquired through business combinations, costs associated with restructuring and severance, equity-based compensation, acquisition and integration costs, impairment relating to assets acquired through business combinations, long-lived asset impairment relating to business cessation or disposal, impairment relating to equity investments, income tax expense/benefit arising from discrete tax items triggered by acquisition, disposal of business (both via a sale or an abandonment), restructuring and significant changes in tax laws, gain/loss on disposal of business, as well as tax benefits or expenses associated with the foregoing non-GAAP items. The non-GAAP adjustments may or may not be infrequent or nonrecurring in nature, but are a result of periodic or non-core operating activities. These non-GAAP measures are consistent with the way management analyzes and assesses the Company’s operating results. The Company believes these non-GAAP measures enhance investors’ understanding of the Company’s underlying operational performance, as well as their ability to compare the Company’s period-to-period financial results and the Company’s overall performance to that of its competitors.

    Management uses both GAAP metrics as well as these non-GAAP metrics to evaluate the Company’s operating and financial results. Non-GAAP financial measures may not provide information that is directly comparable to that provided by other companies in the Company’s industry, as other companies in the industry may calculate non-GAAP financial results differently. In addition, there are limitations in using non-GAAP financial measures because the non-GAAP financial measures are not prepared in accordance with GAAP, may be different from non-GAAP financial measures used by other companies and exclude expenses that may have a material impact on the Company’s reported financial results. The presentation of non-GAAP items is meant to supplement, but not substitute for, GAAP financial measures or information. The Company believes the presentation of non-GAAP results in combination with GAAP results provides better transparency to the investment community when analyzing business trends, providing meaningful comparisons with prior period performance and enhancing investors’ ability to view the Company’s results from management’s perspective. A reconciliation of each non-GAAP financial measure to the most directly comparable GAAP measure discussed in this press release is contained in the financial tables at the end of this press release.

    About Kulicke & Soffa

    Kulicke & Soffa is a global leader in semiconductor assembly technology, advancing device performance across automotive, compute, industrial, memory and communications markets. Founded on innovation in 1951, K&S is uniquely positioned to overcome increasingly dynamic process challenges – creating and delivering long-term value by aligning technology with opportunity.

    Caution Concerning Results, Forward-Looking Statements and Certain Risks Related to our Business

    In addition to historical statements, this press release contains statements relating to future events and our future results. These statements are “forward-looking” statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. While these forward-looking statements represent our judgments and future expectations concerning our business, including the importance and competitiveness of our advanced display products and other emerging technology transitions, a number of risks, uncertainties and other important factors could cause actual developments and results to differ materially from our expectations. These factors include, but are not limited to, failures, delays or other problems arising from the negotiations with the applicable works council or trade unions; failures, delays or other problems arising from regulatory or judicial review of the activities concerning the Company’s intended cessation of its Electronics Assembly equipment business, the persistent macroeconomic headwinds on our business, actual or potential inflationary pressures, interest rate and risk premium adjustments, falling customer sentiment, or economic recession caused directly or indirectly by geopolitical tensions, our ability to develop, manufacture and gain market acceptance of new products, our ability to operate our business in accordance with our business plan and the other factors listed or discussed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 28, 2024, filed on November 14, 2024, and our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Kulicke and Soffa Industries, Inc. is under no obligation to (and expressly disclaims any obligation to) update or alter its forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

    Contact:

    Kulicke and Soffa Industries, Inc.
    Joseph Elgindy
    Finance
    P: +1-215-784-7518

    KULICKE AND SOFFA INDUSTRIES, INC.

    CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

    (In thousands, except per share and employee data)

    (Unaudited)

    Three months ended

    Nine months ended

    June 28, 2025

    June 29, 2024

    June 28, 2025

    June 29, 2024

    Net revenue

    $            148,413

    $         181,650

    $         476,523

    $         524,913

    Cost of sales

    79,170

    96,920

    279,812

    343,816

    Gross profit

    69,243

    84,730

    196,711

    181,097

    Selling, general and administrative

    39,596

    38,516

    126,224

    119,359

    Research and development

    35,741

    37,937

    110,769

    112,451

    Gain relating to cessation of business

    —

    —

    (75,987)

    —

    Impairment charges

    —

    —

    39,817

    44,472

    Operating expenses

    75,337

    76,453

    200,823

    276,282

    (Loss) / Income from operations

    (6,094)

    8,277

    (4,112)

    (95,185)

    Interest income

    6,008

    8,060

    17,982

    26,807

    Interest expense

    (32)

    (20)

    (95)

    (60)

    (Loss) / Income before income taxes

    (118)

    16,317

    13,775

    (68,438)

    Provision for income taxes

    3,171

    4,053

    19,941

    12,685

    Net (loss) / income

    $               (3,289)

    $           12,264

    $           (6,166)

    $          (81,123)

    Net (loss) / income per share:

    Basic

    $                (0.06)

    $               0.22

    $             (0.12)

    $             (1.45)

    Diluted

    $                (0.06)

    $               0.22

    $             (0.12)

    $             (1.45)

    Cash dividends declared per share

    $                0.205

    $               0.20

    $             0.615

    $               0.60

    Weighted average shares outstanding:

    Basic

    52,692

    55,280

    53,265

    56,028

    Diluted

    52,692

    55,724

    53,265

    56,028

    Three months ended

    Nine months ended

    Supplemental financial data:

    June 28, 2025

    June 29, 2024

    June 28, 2025

    June 29, 2024

    Depreciation and amortization

    $             3,917

    $             4,944

    $           13,941

    $           19,896

    Capital expenditures

    2,733

    3,266

    $             7,560

    $           10,645

    Equity-based compensation expense:

    Cost of sales

    376

    315

    1,146

    1,037

    Selling, general and administrative

    4,527

    4,300

    13,186

    14,083

    Research and development

    2,189

    1,748

    6,394

    5,332

    Total equity-based compensation
    expense

    $             7,092

    $             6,363

    $           20,726

    $           20,452

    As of

    June 28, 2025

    June 29, 2024

    Number of employees

    2,625

    2,790

     

    KULICKE AND SOFFA INDUSTRIES, INC.

    CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS

    (In thousands)

    (Unaudited)

    As of

    June 28, 2025

    September 28, 2024

    ASSETS

    Current assets

    Cash and cash equivalents

    $             246,481

    $                  227,147

    Short-term investments

    310,000

    350,000

    Accounts and other receivable, net of allowance for doubtful
    accounts of $49 and $49, respectively

    173,839

    193,909

    Inventories, net

    158,330

    177,736

    Prepaid expenses and other current assets

    41,551

    46,161

    Total current assets

    930,201

    994,953

    Property, plant and equipment, net

    59,534

    64,823

    Operating right-of-use assets

    29,266

    35,923

    Goodwill

    69,522

    89,748

    Intangible assets, net

    5,908

    25,239

    Deferred tax assets

    17,827

    17,900

    Equity investments

    6,107

    3,143

    Other assets

    6,531

    8,433

    TOTAL ASSETS

    $          1,124,896

    $                1,240,162

    LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY

    Current liabilities

    Accounts payable

    $               52,735

    $                    58,847

    Operating lease liabilities

    6,566

    7,718

    Accrued expenses and other current liabilities

    98,928

    90,802

    Income taxes payable

    30,235

    26,427

    Total current liabilities

    188,464

    183,794

    Deferred tax liabilities

    35,812

    34,594

    Income taxes payable

    20,042

    31,352

    Operating lease liabilities

    29,783

    33,245

    Other liabilities

    13,269

    13,168

    TOTAL LIABILITIES

    $             287,370

    $                  296,153

    SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY

    Preferred stock, without par value: Authorized 5,000 shares; issued –
    none

    $                      —

    $                           —

    Common stock, without par value: Authorized 200,000 shares;
    issued 85,364 and 85,364, respectively; outstanding 52,374 and
    53,854 shares, respectively

    612,332

    596,703

    Treasury stock, at cost, 32,990 and 31,510 shares, respectively

    (957,392)

    (881,830)

    Retained earnings

    1,203,768

    1,242,558

    Accumulated other comprehensive loss

    (21,182)

    (13,422)

    TOTAL SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY

    $             837,526

    $                  944,009

    TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY

    $          1,124,896

    $                1,240,162

     

    KULICKE AND SOFFA INDUSTRIES, INC.

    CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

    (In thousands)

    (Unaudited)

    Three months ended

    Nine months ended

    (in thousands)

    June 28, 2025

    June 29, 2024

    June 28, 2025

    June 29, 2024

    Net cash provided by / (used in)
    operating activities

    $                7,380

    $              26,897

    $            106,159

    $                 (582)

    Net cash provided by / (used in)
    investing activities

    (17,463)

    36,594

    26,161

    (20,518)

    Net cash used in financing
    activities

    (32,606)

    (55,933)

    (114,564)

    (141,729)

    Effect of exchange rate changes
    on cash and cash equivalents

    2,651

    (389)

    1,578

    344

    Changes in cash and cash
    equivalents

    (40,038)

    7,169

    19,334

    (162,485)

    Cash and cash equivalents,
    beginning of period

    286,519

    359,748

    227,147

    529,402

    Cash and cash equivalents, end
    of period

    $            246,481

    $            366,917

    $            246,481

    $            366,917

    Short-term investments

    310,000

    235,000

    310,000

    235,000

    Total cash, cash equivalents and
    short-term investments

    $            556,481

    $            601,917

    $            556,481

    $            601,917

     

    Reconciliation of U.S. GAAP 

    to Non-GAAP Income from Operations and Operating Margin

    (In thousands, except percentages)

    (Unaudited)

    Three months ended

    June 28, 2025

    June 29, 2024

    March 29, 2025

    Net revenue

    $         148,413

    $          181,650

    $          161,986

    U.S. GAAP (loss) / income from operations

    (6,094)

    8,277

    (84,667)

    U.S. GAAP operating margin

    (4.1) %

    4.6 %

    (52.3) %

    Pre-tax non-GAAP items:

    Amortization related to intangible assets

    308

    1,250

    1,171

    Restructuring

    287

    —

    8,806

    Equity-based compensation

    7,092

    6,363

    7,493

    Impairment charges

    —

    —

    39,817

    Non-GAAP income / (loss) from operations

    $             1,593

    $            15,890

    $           (27,380)

    Non-GAAP operating margin

    1.1 %

    8.7 %

    (16.9) %

     

    Reconciliation of U.S. GAAP Net Income to Non-GAAP Net Income and Non-GAAP Net Margin and

    U.S. GAAP net income per share to Non-GAAP net income per share

    (In thousands, except percentages and per share data)

    (Unaudited)

    Three months ended

    June 28, 2025

    June 29, 2024

    March 29, 2025

    Net revenue

    $      148,413

    $      181,650

    $            161,986

    U.S. GAAP net (loss) / income

    (3,289)

    12,264

    (84,519)

    U.S. GAAP net margin

    (2.2) %

    6.8 %

    (52.2) %

    Non-GAAP adjustments:

    Amortization related to intangible assets

    308

    1,250

    1,171

    Restructuring

    287

    —

    8,806

    Equity-based compensation

    7,092

    6,363

    7,493

    Impairment charges

    —

    —

    39,817

    Net income tax benefit on non-GAAP items

    (626)

    (568)

    (639)

    Total non-GAAP adjustments

    $          7,061

    $          7,045

    $              56,648

    Non-GAAP net income / (loss)

    $          3,772

    $        19,309

    $             (27,871)

    Non-GAAP net margin

    2.5 %

    10.6 %

    (17.2) %

    U.S. GAAP net (loss) / income per share:

    Basic

    $          (0.06)

    $            0.22

    $                 (1.59)

    Diluted(a)

    $          (0.06)

    $            0.22

    $                 (1.59)

    Non-GAAP adjustments per share:(b)

    Basic

    $            0.13

    $            0.13

    $                  1.07

    Diluted

    $            0.13

    $            0.13

    $                  1.07

    Non-GAAP net income / (loss) per share:

    Basic

    $            0.07

    $            0.35

    $                 (0.52)

    Diluted(c)

    $            0.07

    $            0.35

    $                 (0.52)

    Weighted average shares outstanding:

    Basic

    52,692

    55,280

    53,311

    Diluted

    52,866

    55,724

    53,311

    (a)

    GAAP diluted net earnings per share reflects any dilutive effect of outstanding restricted stock, but that effect is excluded when calculating GAAP diluted net loss per share because it would be anti-dilutive.

    (b)

    Non-GAAP adjustments per share include amortization related to intangible assets acquired through business combinations, costs associated with restructuring and severance, equity-based compensation expenses, impairment relating to assets acquired through business combinations, long-lived asset impairment relating to business cessation or disposal, gain relating to disposal or cessation of business, and income tax effects associated with the foregoing non-GAAP items.

    (c)

    Non-GAAP diluted net earnings per share reflects any dilutive effect of outstanding restricted stock, but that effect is excluded when calculating Non-GAAP diluted net loss per share because it would be anti-dilutive.

     

    Reconciliation of U.S. GAAP Cash provided by Operating Activities

    to Non-GAAP Adjusted Free Cash Flow

    (In thousands, except percentages)

    (unaudited)

    Three months ended

    June 28, 2025

    June 29, 2024

    March 29, 2025

    U.S. GAAP net cash provided by operating
    activities

    $             7,380

    $             26,897

    $                  79,877

    Purchases of property, plant and equipment

    (2,090)

    (2,683)

    (1,954)

    Proceeds from sales of property, plant and
    equipment

    147

    —

    60

    Non-GAAP adjusted free cash flow

    $             5,437

    $             24,214

    $                  77,983

     

    Reconciliation of U.S. GAAP to Non-GAAP Outlook

    (In millions, except per share data)

    (Unaudited)

    Fourth quarter of fiscal 2025 ending October 4, 2025

    GAAP Outlook

    Adjustments

    Non-GAAP Outlook

    Net revenue

    $170 million

    +/- $10 million

    —

    $170 million

    +/- $10 million

    Operating expenses

    $75.5 million

    +/- 2%

    $7.5 million B,C

    $68.0 million

    +/- 2%

    Diluted EPS(1)

    $0.08

    +/- 10%%

    $0.14 A, B, C, D

    $0.22

    +/- 10%

    Non-GAAP Adjustments

    A. Equity-based compensation – Cost of sales

    0.4

    B. Equity-based compensation – Selling, general and administrative and Research and
    development

    7.2

    C. Amortization related to intangible assets

    0.3

    D. Net income tax effect of the above items

    (0.6)

    (1) GAAP and non-GAAP diluted EPS based on approximately 52.0 million diluted weighted average shares outstanding.

    The tables above reconcile our GAAP to non-GAAP guidance based on the current outlook. The guidance does not incorporate the impact of any potential business combinations, divestitures, restructuring activities, strategic investments and other significant transactions. The timing and impact of such items are dependent on future events that may be uncertain or outside of our control.

     

     

    SOURCE Kulicke & Soffa Industries, Inc.

    Continue Reading

  • Sarepta Therapeutics Announces Second Quarter 2025 Financial Results and Recent Corporate Developments – Sarepta Therapeutics

    1. Sarepta Therapeutics Announces Second Quarter 2025 Financial Results and Recent Corporate Developments  Sarepta Therapeutics
    2. Sarepta to Report Q2 Earnings: What’s in Store for the Stock?  Nasdaq
    3. Sarepta rises on strong quarterly earnings and revenue  MSN
    4. Sarepta Therapeutics Inc reports results for the quarter ended June 30 – Earnings Summary  TradingView
    5. Sarepta earnings beat by $1.32, revenue topped estimates  Investing.com

    Continue Reading

  • Shift Toward Chemotherapy-Free Approaches Redefines Upfront CLL Treatment Selection

    Shift Toward Chemotherapy-Free Approaches Redefines Upfront CLL Treatment Selection

    Kathleen A. Dorritie, MD

    As upfront treatment approaches in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) become increasingly less reliant on standard chemotherapy agents in favor of BTK inhibitor–based regimens, it is even more crucial to understand and identify the appropriate strategies for patients with newly diagnosed vs relapsed/refractory disease, according to Kathleen A. Dorritie, MD.

    Two studies that have helped move the needle in treatment-naive CLL are the phase 3 AMPLIFY (NCT03836261) and ELEVATE-TN (NCT02475681) trials, Dorritie noted. In the AMPLIFY trial, at a median follow-up of 40.8 months, the estimated 36-month progression-free survival (PFS) was 76.5%, 83.1%, and 66.5% for patients with newly diagnosed CLL treated with acalabrutinib (Calquence) plus venetoclax (Venclexta) vs acalabrutinib plus venetoclax/obinutuzumab (Gazyva) vs chemoimmunotherapy, respectively.1 Respective overall survival rates were 94.1%, 87.7%, and 85.9%.

    In ELEVATE-TN, after 6 years of follow-up, the median PFS was not reached with acalabrutinib/obinutuzumab or acalabrutinib monotherapy; in contrast, the median PFS was 27.8 months in the chlorambucil/obinutuzumab arm (P < .0001).2 The estimated 72-month overall PFS rates in these respective arms were 78.0%, 61.5%, and 17.2%. Notably, acalabrutinib/obinutuzumab improved PFS vs acalabrutinib monotherapy (HR, 0.58; P = .0229).

    “AMPLIFY and ELEVATE-TN both showed that patients who received targeted therapy had improved outcomes compared with those who received standard chemoimmunotherapy,” Dorritie explained during an interview with OncLive®.

    In the interview, Dorritie expanded on 2 case studies of patients with CLL, both of which she presented as chair of a recent State of the Science Summit™ on hematologic malignancies. Dorritie also highlighted differences in treatment strategies for patients with newly diagnosed vs relapsed/refractory CLL, and the shift towards chemotherapy-free regimens in CLL.

    Dorritie is a hematologist/oncologist at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Hillman Cancer Center in Pennsylvania.

    OncLive: What clinical case scenarios were discussed at the Summit?

    Dorritie: In a clinical case scenario,[we have to consider:] what is the optimal approach for newly diagnosed CLL, particularly for young patients. The SOC is changing to the point where it’s almost chemotherapy-free regimens for all. One of the case studies I presented in the newly diagnosed setting was asking whether we are ready for triplet combination therapy or are not quite there yet.

    In the other case study, we focused on an older patient who had had some exposure to prior targeted agents and had relapsed multiple times, and [we identified] what the best option might be in the relapsed/refractory setting.

    How does treatment decision-making differ for patients who are newly diagnosed vs those who have received multiple lines of therapy?

    In the newly diagnosed setting, [the SOC] has really changed with the results from studies like AMPLIFY and ELEVATE-TN, [both of which assessed a] treatment-naive patient population. Evidence from both AMPLIFY and ELEVATE-TN has directed the incorporation of BTK inhibitors and the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax in the upfront treatment setting. [These are] the new SOC, and there are very few patients for whom we would choose a chemotherapy regimen upfront.

    In the relapsed/refractory setting, we also discussed how we sequence therapies, which comes down to what patients had been previously treated with. How did they respond to those therapies? Were there certain toxicities that they [encountered with] a specific therapy? That helps guide what our next choice is regarding that line of treatment.

    How are chemotherapy-free regimens shifting the CLL treatment paradigm?

    [Historically,] in certain younger patients who were fit, we may still opt for a regimen like fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab [Rituxan], for example, or even bendamustine/rituximab [BR]. However, now we have multiple studies [showing that] the outcomes of PFS were better in patients who received the more targeted therapy. [This] includes AMPLIFY, which looked at the combination of acalabrutinib and venetoclax [with or without] obinutuzumab; the ELEVATE-TN study, which looked at acalabrutinib [with or without] obinutuzumab vs chlorambucil [plus] obinutuzumab; and the [phase 3] SEQUOIA study [NCT03336333] which compared zanubrutinib [Brukinsa] vs BR. [Additionally,] we’ve taken chemoimmunotherapy off the table for the vast majority of patients with CLL, which is a great and huge paradigm shift.

    References

    • Brown JR, Seymour JF, Jurczak W, et al. Fixed-duration acalabrutinib combinations in untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2025;392(8):748-762. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2409804
    • Sharman JP, Egyed M, Jurczak W, et al. Acalabrutinib-obinutuzumab improves survival vs chemoimmunotherapy in treatment-naive CLL in the 6-year follow-up of ELEVATE-TN. Blood. Published online April 8, 2025. doi:10.1182/blood.2024024476

    Continue Reading

  • Amazon’s Zoox robotaxi unit clears regulatory hurdle, safety probe

    Amazon’s Zoox robotaxi unit clears regulatory hurdle, safety probe

    Amazon’s Zoox robotaxi unit is ramping up vehicle production at a new facility in Hayward, California.

    Zoox

    Amazon‘s Zoox has cleared a key regulatory hurdle, paving the way for demonstrations of its self-driving robotaxis.

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said Wednesday that it granted Zoox an exemption from some requirements, a first for U.S.-built vehicles under a recently expanded program.

    “Transportation innovators can be confident in getting speedy review of their vehicles and, as appropriate, exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards,” NHTSA Chief Counsel Peter Simshauser said in a release.

    The company must remove all existing statements that its purpose-built vehicles meet all federal motor vehicle safety standards.

    As part of the announcement, NHTSA said it’s closing a probe opened in March 2023 into Zoox’s self-certification that its robotaxi met federal safety standards.

    “Through this new exemption process, we are excited to embark on this new path, put these discussions behind us, and move forward,” Zoox said in a statement.

    The Department of Transportation in April announced it would expand a program that aims to speed up the autonomous vehicle exemption process to include domestically produced vehicles. Previously, it was limited to imported AVs.

    The easing of regulations will benefit Zoox and its competitors.

    Tesla has announced that it plans to produce a two-seater CyberCab with no steering wheel or pedals down the line.

    The expansion of the Automated Vehicle Exemption Program could make it easier for the company to conduct testing and operate on public, U.S. roadways if Elon Musk’s automaker can meet the agency’s requirements.

    Zoox, founded 11 years ago and purchased by Amazon for $1.3 billion in 2020, has been gearing up for further expansion this year.

    The company in June opened a robotaxi manufacturing facility in the San Francisco Bay Area, where it aims to eventually produce 10,000 vehicles a year once it’s at full scale.

    Zoox needs more of its toaster-shaped robotaxis to roll off the assembly line to fulfill its mission of deploying a commercial ride-hailing service in the U.S.

    The company has eyed Las Vegas as its first commercial market, and said it plans to begin service there later this year.

    — CNBC’s Lora Kolodny contributed reporting to this article.

    Continue Reading

  • Oil prices slide to 8-week low as US-Russia talks stir sanction uncertainty – Reuters

    1. Oil prices slide to 8-week low as US-Russia talks stir sanction uncertainty  Reuters
    2. Oil prices rebound after Trump imposes tariffs on India over Russian crude purchases  Reuters
    3. Energy & Utilities Roundup: Market Talk  The Wall Street Journal
    4. WTI Crude: Bulls on the Back Foot as Fundamentals and Technicals Align  FOREX.com
    5. Crude oil futures settle at $64.35. Drawdown in inventories & sanctions have little impact  TradingView

    Continue Reading