Category: 3. Business

The addition of ipilimumab (Yervoy) to nivolumab (Opdivo) not only led to a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) over nivolumab alone, but it also resulted in better health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and reduced symptoms in patients with microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair–deficient (dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), according to additional analyses from the phase 3 CheckMate 8HW trial (NCT04008030).¹

At the 2025 ESMO Gastrointestinal (GI) Cancers Congress, it was shared that of the 582 total patients treated with the doublet or with nivolumab alone on the trial, questionnaire completion rates ranged from 91% to 95% at baseline. Investigators leveraged the EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-CR29, and EQ-5D-3L instruments to examine mean changes from baseline vs week 21. Improvements in functioning and decreases in symptoms were observed for both treatment groups across all key functional domains and symptoms, with slightly greater improvements in the nivolumab/ipilimumab arm.

When they analyzed the mean change from baseline in global health status (GHS) scores, they found that in both treatment groups, GHS scores showed a trend for improvement starting at week 7. In the doublet arm, GHS scores remained at, or near, the minimally important change from baseline starting at week 21; the nivolumab-alone arm had slightly less improvement.

They also examined the mean change from baseline in fatigue scores. In both treatment groups, fatigue scores demonstrated a trend for improvement starting at week 7. In the doublet arm, fatigue scores exceeded the minimally important change from baseline starting at week 21 vs week 85 in the nivolumab-alone arm. Improvements in fatigue scores from baseline were numerically better in those who received the doublet vs those given the monotherapy starting at week 21; however, the analysis was not designed to formally compare the treatment arms.

When looking at mean change from baseline in ED-5D-3L visual analogue scores, which is a measure of patients’ self-reported health, the score demonstrated a trend for improvement starting at week 7 in both treatment groups. In the doublet arm, the visual analogue scores exceeded the minimally important change from baseline starting at week 21; for the monotherapy arm, the minimally important change from baseline was exceeded starting at week 61.

Lastly, they assessed mean change from baseline in EQ-5D-3L utility index scores. In both treatment groups, these scores indicated a trend for improvement starting at week 7. Those in both the nivolumab/ipilimumab and nivolumab-alone arms exceeded the minimally important change from baseline starting at week 29.

“The addition of nivolumab to ipilimumab significantly improved PFS compared [with] nivolumab immunotherapy while maintaining HRQOL,” Elena Elez MD, PhD, said in a presentation of the data. Elez is a medical oncology consultant at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital and senior investigator at Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology in Barcelona, Spain.

Checking Out CheckMate 8HW: Eligibility, Treatment, End Points

The randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 3 study enrolled patients with histologically confirmed unresectable or mCRC who had MSI-H/dMMR status by local testing, had not been previously exposed to immunotherapy, and had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1.

They were randomly assigned in a 2:2:1 fashion to receive 240 mg of nivolumab every 2 weeks for 6 doses followed by 480 mg of nivolumab every 4 weeks (n = 353); 240 mg of nivolumab plus 1 mg/kg of ipilimumab every 3 weeks for 4 doses followed by 480 mg of nivolumab every 4 weeks (n = 354); or investigator’s choice of chemotherapy in the form of mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab (Avastin) or cetuximab (Erbitux; n = 132). Treatment continued until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawn consent, or the maximum treatment duration of 2 years.

Patients were stratified based on number of prior lines of treatment (0 vs 1 vs ≥2) and primary tumor location (right vs left). The trial had dual primary end points: PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR) for the doublet vs chemotherapy in the first-line setting and PFS by BICR for the doublet vs nivolumab alone across all lines—all in those with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC. Other end points included safety, PFS2, objective response rate by BICR, overall survival, and HRQOL.

What Came Before

Previous data indicated that nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n = 296) yielded to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS vs nivolumab alone (n = 286) in those with centrally confirmed MSI-H/dMMR mCRC across all lines of therapy. The median PFS was not reached (95% CI, 53.8-not evaluable [NE]) with the doublet vs 39.3 months (95% CI, 22.1-NE) with nivolumab alone (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48-0.81; P = .0003).² The 12-, 24-, and 36-month PFS rates in the doublet arm were 76%, 71%, and 67%, respectively; in the monotherapy arm, these respective rates were 62%, 55%, and 51%.

Elez noted that the PFS benefit with the combination vs the nivolumab alone also proved to be consistent in all randomly assigned patients, at a median of 54.1 months vs 18.4 months, respectively (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52-0.79).¹

In April 2025, the FDA granted accelerated approval to nivolumab plus ipilimumab for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients at least 12 years of age with dMMR or MSI-H unresectable or mCRC based on CheckMate 8HW data.³ The combination was also cleared in the European Union and other countries for this indication.¹ Elez added that previously, first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab improved HRQOL in key functioning scales and reduced symptoms compared with chemotherapy.

Breaking Down the Basics of the Current Analysis

For the analysis shared during the 2025 ESMO GI Cancers Congress, Elez shared HRQOL findings for nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with nivolumab alone across all lines of treatment. The data cutoff was August 28, 2024, and the median follow-up was 47.0 months (range, 16.7-60.5).

These analyses included those with centrally confirmed MSI-H/dMMR mCRC who had received at least 1 dose of the combination or nivolumab monotherapy. They were evaluated with EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-CR29, and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires, which were answered at baseline, defined as before day 1 of cycle 1; day 1 cycle 2; day 1 cycle 3; then every other cycle thereafter, or every 8 weeks. “As a reminder, the C30 refers to [patients with] cancer, the CR29 is specifically for [patients with] CRC, and the EQ-5D-3L refers to all illness beyond patients with cancer,” Elez explained.

The questionnaires were scored per their scoring instructions, and data were summarized through descriptive analyses, which included mean scores and changes from baseline, standard deviation of the means, medians, interquartile range, and minimum and maximum values at each time point.

Disclosures: Elez disclosed serving in consulting or advisory roles for Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cureteq, Jannsen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Repare Therapeutics, RIN Institute, Roche-Genentech, Sanofi, Seagen, Servier, and Takeda. Honoraria was received from Amgen, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cureteq, Janssen, Lilly, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Repare Therapeutics, RIN Institute, Roche-Genentech, Sanofi, Seagen, Servier, and Takeda. Research funding (institution) was provided by AbbVie, Amgen, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Biontech, BioNTech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boehringer Ingelheim (Spain), Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm Group, Gercor, HailoDx, Huchison MediPharma, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Janssen-Cilag, Janssen R&D, MedImmune, Menarini, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merus NV, Mirati, Novartis, Nouscom, PharmaMar, Pfizer, PledPharma, RedX Pharma, Pierre Fabre, Roche-Genentech, Sanofi, Scandion Oncology, Seagen, Servier, Sotio, Taiho, and WntResearch. Travel or accommodation expenses were provided by Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cureteq, Janssen, Lilly, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Repare Therapeutics, RIN Institute, Roche-Genentech, Sanofi, Servier, Seagen, and Takeda. The study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb.

References

1. Elez E, Andre T, Lonardi S, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs nivolumab monotherapy for microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer: health-related quality of life analyses from CheckMate 8HW. Presented at: 2025 ESMO Gastrointestinal Cancers Congress; July 2-5, 2025; Barcelona, Spain. Abstract 1O.
2. Lonardi S, André T, Arnold D, et al. 2O Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with first-line (1L) nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) vs chemotherapy (chemo) in patients (pts) with microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): CheckMate 8HW. Ann Oncol. 2024;35(suppl 1):S1-S2. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2024.05.013
3. FDA approves nivolumab with ipilimumab for unresectable or metastatic MSI-H or dMMR colorectal cancer. FDA. April 8, 2025. Accessed July 3, 2025. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-nivolumab-ipilimumab-unresectable-or-metastatic-msi-h-or-dmmr-colorectal-cancer

Budget airline Ryanair is planning to increase its “personal bag” size by 20% as the EU brings in a new standard.

Passengers will be allowed to take an item such as a handbag or laptop bag measuring up to 40cm x 30cm x 20cm in the cabin without paying an extra fee. It should weigh less than 10kg, and fit “under the seat in front you.”

The new size represents a 20% increase in volume from the current maximum dimensions.

This will mean that Ryanair accepts free bags one third bigger than the new EU minimum size limit.

Ryanair said the new free bag size would come into effect in the coming weeks as its bag size measuring devices were adjusted to the new standard.

It’s current maximum bag size is 40cm x 25cm x 20cm, which already has a greater volume than the new European standard of 40cm x 30cm x 15cm.

Ryanair declined to say why it was giving passengers a larger carry-on bag allowance.

The size is still less generous than rival budget airline Easyjet, which allows a free underseat bag of 45cm x 36cm x 20cm (including wheels and handles) weighing up to 10kg.

Wizz Air allows one cabin bag as big as Ryanair’s new limits – 40cm x 30cm x 20cm, with the same weight limit of 10kg.

BA has a slightly smaller limit for an under-seat laptop bag or handbag of 40cm x 30cm x 15cm, but passengers are allowed to take a larger cabin bag as well free of charge, subject to a maximum weight of 23kg.

The EU has been working with airlines to agree a minimum free bag size, so that frequent travellers can purchase one piece of luggage and be confident it would be accepted by multiple airlines.

The rule applies to airlines based in the EU – which includes Easyjet, Ryanair and Wizz Air – but airlines are of course free to accept larger bags if they choose.

Confusion about the different minimum sizes has caused problems for passengers, who have sometimes been faced with unexpected extra fees when airlines said their bags didn’t match the specified dimensions.

Last month the transport committee of the European parliament voted to give passengers the right to an extra piece of free hand luggage weighing up to 7kg. The proposed rule would still have to be passed by the wider European parliament.

Passengers should confirm baggage rules with their airlines directly.

The addition of durvalumab (Imfinzi) to perioperative FLOT (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) did not lead to differences in overall health-related quality of life (QOL), patient function, or symptom burden vs placebo plus FLOT in patients with resectable gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma, according to an analysis of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the phase 3 MATTERHORN trial (NCT04592913).¹

Data presented at the 2025 ESMO Gastrointestinal Cancers Congress demonstrated that no clinically meaningful deterioration in global health score (GHS)/QOL, physical function, or role function was observed for durvalumab plus FLOT (n = 467) vs placebo plus FLOT (n = 459) at 3 months following the completion of treatment. Similarly, PROs were comparable between the 2 arms in terms of symptom burden, including dysphagia, eating restrictions, anxiety, dry mouth, taste, hair loss, body image, weight loss, fatigue, and appetite loss.

PROs recorded over the course of treatment showed that there was no clinically meaningful deterioration in GHS/QOL in either arm overall. Notably, clinically relevant deterioration in GHS/QOL—defined as a decrease of at least 10 points—occurred in both arms during cycles 4 and 5, but this improved to a decrease of less than 10 points by cycle 5 in both groups.

Additionally, there was no relevant difference in time to deterioration (TTD) in PROs between the 2 treatment groups. The median TTD for GHS/QOL was 13.86 months (95% CI, 11.24-19.98) in the durvalumab arm vs 13.60 months (95% CI, 10.68-16.46) in the placebo arm (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.76-1.07). Regarding physical function, the median TTD was 13.70 months (95% CI, 10.94-17.84) and 11.93 months (95% CI, 9.26-15.38) for the durvalumab and placebo regimens, respectively (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.75-1.05). For role function, the median TTD was 10.12 months (95% CI, 7.98-11.66) for those given durvalumab and 8.34 months (95% CI, 7.23-10.68) for those given placebo (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.76-1.05).

“This [PRO] analysis supports the positive risk:benefit profile of perioperative durvalumab [plus] FLOT in patients with localized gastric and GEJ adenocarcinoma,” lead study author Salah-Eddin Al-Batran, MD, of Krankenhaus Nordwest, University Cancer Center (UCT) Frankfurt and Frankfurt Institute of Clinical Cancer Research in Germany, said in a presentation of the data.

Revisiting Efficacy Data From MATTERHORN

Data presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting showed MATTERHORN met its primary end point, with patients treated with durvalumab plus FLOT achieving a statistically significant improvement in event-free survival (EFS) compared with those treated with placebo plus FLOT (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.86; P < .001).² The median EFS was not reached (NR; 95% CI, 40.7-NR) for the durvalumab arm vs 32.8 months (95% CI, 27.9-NR) in the placebo arm.

The median overall survival (OS) was NR (95% CI, NR-NR) for patients in the durvalumab group vs 47.2 months (95% CI, 45.1-NR) for those in the placebo arm (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.97; P = .025). Although this difference was not statistically significant, Al-Batran noted that data from the final OS analysis are pending.¹

MATTERHORN Background and PRO Analysis

The global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study enrolled patients with stage II to IVA gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma who had no evidence of metastases, received no prior therapy, and had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1.

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive neoadjuvant FLOT in combination with durvalumab or placebo, followed by surgery and adjuvant FLOT plus durvalumab or placebo, then 10 cycles of durvalumab or placebo monotherapy. In both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant combination portions, FLOT was given for 4 doses both before and after surgery, and durvalumab or placebo were given for 2 doses both before and after surgery.

Stratification factors included geographic region (Asia vs non-Asia), clinical lymph node status (positive vs negative), and PD-L1 expression (tumor area proportion [TAP] score <1% vs TAP ≥1%).

Along with the EFS primary end point, key secondary end points comprised OS and pathological complete response rate. Secondary PRO end points included TTD and change from baseline in function and symptoms.

The median age at baseline was 62 years (range, 26-84) in the durvalumab arm and 63 years (range, 28-83) in the placebo arm. Most patients in both arms were male (durvalumab, 69%; placebo, 75%), not from Asia (81%; 81%), had an ECOG performance status of 0 (71%; 77%), had gastric adenocarcinoma (68%; 67%), had non-T4 disease (75%; 75%), had node-positive disease (69%; 70%), had a PD-L1 TAP of at least 1% (90%; 90%), had an intestinal histology (52%; 50%), and did not have microsatellite instability–high disease (64%; 65%).

Baseline PROs were similar between the durvalumab and placebo arms in terms of function as evaluated by the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire and function per the EORTC QLQ-STO22 + IL38 questionnaire. “We can also see that patients were mildly symptomatic compared [with patients with] metastatic [disease], reflecting the ECOG performance status for patients in this study,” Al-Batran explained.

Furthermore, compliance rates for PROs were high in both arms over the course of the study. After utilizing the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-STO22 + IL38 questionnaires at baseline, PROs were recorded with these forms from cycles 2 through 14. Compliance rates for both questionnaires never dipped below 76.3% in either arm at any assessment point during treatment, and the vast majority of cycles had compliance rates above 80% in both groups.

Safety Data

Safety findings, which were also presented at the ASCO Annual Meeting in June, showed that any-grade adverse effects (AEs) were reported in 99% of patients in both arms. AEs possibly related to study treatment occurred in 95% of patients in both groups. Grade 3/4 AEs were observed in 72% of patients in the durvalumab arm vs 71% of patients in the placebo group, and the rates of grade 3/4 AEs possibly related to treatment were 60% and 59%, respectively. Serious AEs were reported at rates of 48% for the durvalumab regimen vs 44% for the placebo regimen.

AEs led to discontinuation of any study treatment in 30% of patients in the durvalumab arm vs 23% of those in the control arm. Durvalumab was discontinued in 10% of patients due to AEs, whereas 6% of patients discontinued placebo. AEs led to FLOT discontinuation in 25% and 20% of patients, respectively. Fatal AEs occurred in 5% of patients in the durvalumab arm vs 4% of patients in the placebo arm. The rates of fatal AEs possibly related to durvalumab or placebo were 1% and less than 1%, respectively. AEs leading to death possibly related to FLOT occurred in 1% and less than 1% of patients, respectively.

Any-grade immune-mediated AEs (irAEs) occurred in 23% of patients in the durvalumab group vs 7% of those in the placebo arm. Grade 3/4 irAEs were reported in 7% and 4% of patients, respectively. AEs prevented surgery in 1% of patients in the durvalumab group vs less than 1% of patients in the placebo group. Surgery was delayed due to AEs in 2% and 3% of patients, respectively.

Disclosures: Al-Batran reported serving in advisory roles for AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly Germany, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; receiving funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly Germany, Eurozyto, Federal Ministry of Education and Research, German Cancer Aid, German Research Foundation, Immutep, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Sanofi, and Vifor Pharma; having an ownership interest in Frankfurter Institut für Klinische Krebsforschung; and serving in a speakers’ bureau for AlO GmbH, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly Germany, and MCI Group.

References

1. Al-Batran S-E, Wainberg ZA, Muro K, et al. Event-free survival (EFS) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in MATTERHORN: A randomised, phase III study of durvalumab plus 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin and docetaxel (FLOT) chemotherapy in resectable gastric/gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) adenocarcinoma. Presented at: 2025 ESMO Gastrointestinal Cancer Congress; July 2-5, 2025; Barcelona, Spain. Abstract LBA4.
2. Janjigian Y, Al-Batran S-E, Wainberg Z, et al. Event-free survival (EFS) in MATTERHORN: a randomized, phase 3 study of durvalumab plus 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin and docetaxel chemotherapy (FLOT) in resectable gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC). J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(suppl 17):LBA5. doi:10.1200/JCO.2025.43.17_suppl.LBA5

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is shaking up the artificial intelligence domain with a massive, unprecedented recruitment drive that is not only targeting OpenAI’s top talent but also making it even harder for the US government to build its own tech bench.

Zuckerberg is offering mind-boggling compensation packages, sometimes exceeding $100 million in the first year alone to lure leading AI researchers from OpenAI and other companies. Over four years, total payouts could soar to $300 million, as reported by WIRED. These are not just high salaries, they rival the kind of money usually reserved for star athletes or major start-up valuations.

The campaign culminated this week with Zuckerberg unveiling Meta Superintelligence Labs (MSL), his new elite AI division. The Meta founder has personally courted potential hires at his residences in Palo Alto and Lake Tahoe. His most high-profile recruit so far is Alex Wang, co-founder of Scale AI, who will serve as Meta’s Chief AI Officer. Former GitHub CEO Nat Friedman will lead product and applied AI development. Eleven other top-tier hires were listed in an internal memo.

Zuckerberg’s all-out raid is dramatically inflating AI compensation and intensifying a talent war already underway in Silicon Valley. The ripple effect is particularly damaging for the U.S. government, which was already struggling to compete for AI expertise. With tens of millions now easily attainable in private industry, public service becomes a much harder sell.

Meanwhile, Chinese tech firms are quickly gaining ground, supported by their government’s ability to direct top talent into state projects. A recent Wall Street Journal report warned that China’s AI models from companies like DeepSeek and Alibaba—are rapidly gaining traction across Asia, Europe, and Africa.

Backdrop and implications

Zuckerberg’s hiring spree is part of a larger strategic pivot, reminiscent of his earlier move to shift Facebook’s focus to mobile. Then, he bought Instagram and WhatsApp to catch up. Now, instead of acquiring companies, he’s betting on individuals.

It’s a bold move—but not without risk. Meta has spent heavily developing its large language model, Llama, to catch up with ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini. But The Wall Street Journal notes that Meta’s track record in generative AI has made some recruits hesitant.

Still, Zuckerberg sees the opportunity clearly. OpenAI has projected massive growth—$10 billion in annual revenue already, with targets of $125 billion by 2029 and $174 billion by 2030. Anthropic, another OpenAI spinoff, is on a $4 billion annual revenue pace. For Meta, the payoff of dominating this sector could be trillions in long-term gains.

Altman’s response

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman acknowledged the aggressive poaching attempt, telling employees that Meta did manage to hire “a few great people” but largely missed out on OpenAI’s top talent. In a Slack message, he commented, “Missionaries will beat mercenaries,” stressing that OpenAI’s strength lies in its mission-driven culture.

He also pointed out on a recent podcast that OpenAI’s financial model rewards success with strong long-term incentives, aligning innovation with economic gain.

The broader concern

This highly public bidding war reflects an underlying AI arms race that’s now impacting national interests. For government agencies, the challenge is existential. They’re increasingly priced out of a market where the world’s biggest corporations treat top researchers like venture-backed unicorns. And without major reforms or incentives, Uncle Sam may be left watching from the side-lines.

LIVINGSTON, N.J., July 3, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — CoreWeave (Nasdaq: CRWV), the AI Hyperscaler™, today announced it is the first AI cloud provider to deploy the latest NVIDIA GB300 NVL72 systems for customers, with plans to significantly scale deployments worldwide.

The NVIDIA GB300 NVL72 represents a major leap in performance for AI reasoning and agentic workloads, delivering up to a 10x boost in user responsiveness, a 5x improvement in throughput per watt compared to the previous generation NVIDIA Hopper architecture, and a 50x increase in output for reasoning model inference.

“CoreWeave is constantly working to push the boundaries of AI development further, deploying the bleeding-edge cloud capabilities required to train the next generation of AI models,” said Peter Salanki, Co-Founder and Chief Technology Officer at CoreWeave. “We’re proud to be the first to stand up this transformative platform and help innovators prepare for the next exciting wave of AI.”

CoreWeave collaborated with Dell, Switch, and Vertiv to build the initial deployment of NVIDIA GB300 NVL72 systems, enabling greater speed and efficiency to bring the latest accelerated computing offerings from NVIDIA to CoreWeave’s AI cloud platform.

The deployment of GB300 NVL72 is tightly integrated with CoreWeave’s cloud-native software stack, including its CoreWeave Kubernetes Service (CKS) and Slurm on Kubernetes (SUNK) to its deep observability and custom-designed Rack LifeCycle Controller (RLCC). CoreWeave recently announced that hardware-level data and cluster health events are now integrated directly through Weights & Biases’ developer platform, which CoreWeave acquired earlier this year.

This achievement continues CoreWeave’s legacy of delivering first-to-market access to the world’s most advanced AI infrastructure demanded by the world’s leading AI labs and enterprises. This initial deployment of NVIDIA GB300 NVL72 rack-scale systems expands on CoreWeave’s existing Blackwell fleet, which also includes the NVIDIA HGX B200 and the NVIDIA GB200 NVL72 systems. Last year, CoreWeave was among the first to offer NVIDIA H200 GPUs and was the first AI cloud provider to make NVIDIA GB200 NVL72 systems generally available.

In June 2025, CoreWeave, in collaboration with NVIDIA and IBM, submitted the largest-ever MLPerf® Training v5.0 benchmark using nearly 2,500 NVIDIA GB200 Grace Blackwell Superchips, achieving a breakthrough result on the most complex model, Llama 3.1 405B, in just 27.3 minutes. CoreWeave is the only hyperscaler to achieve the highest Platinum rating by SemiAnalysis’s GPU Cloud ClusterMAX™ Rating System, an independent AI cloud industry benchmark.

About CoreWeave
CoreWeave (Nasdaq: CRWV), the AI Hyperscaler™, delivers a cloud platform of cutting-edge software powering the next wave of AI. The company’s technology provides enterprises and leading AI labs with cloud solutions for accelerated computing. Since 2017, CoreWeave has operated a growing footprint of data centers across the US and Europe. CoreWeave was ranked as one of the TIME100 most influential companies and featured on Forbes Cloud 100 ranking in 2024. Learn more at www.coreweave.com.

Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 that involve risks and uncertainties, which statements are based on current expectations, forecasts, and assumptions and involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from expectations discussed in such statements. These forward-looking statements are only predictions and may differ materially from actual results due to a variety of factors including, but not limited to, general market, political, economic and business conditions. These factors, as well as others, are discussed in CoreWeave’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the sections titled “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” and “Risk Factors” in CoreWeave’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2025. All forward-looking statements contained herein are based on information available as of the date hereof and CoreWeave does not assume any obligation to update these statements as a result of new information or future events.

SOURCE CoreWeave

By Marcela Ayres and Bernardo Caram

BRASILIA (Reuters) -The BRICS group of developing nations is set to announce a new guarantee fund backed by the New Development Bank (NDB) to lower financing costs and boost investment, two people familiar with the matter told Reuters.

The initiative, modeled on the World Bank’s Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), aims to address global investment shifts amid uncertainty surrounding U.S. economic policy, the sources said on condition of anonymity.

Brazilian officials view the fund as the centerpiece of the BRICS financial agenda during the country’s rotating presidency. The fund is expected to be mentioned in the joint statement at the BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro next week, said the sources.

Originally formed by Brazil, Russia, India and China, the BRICS group later added South Africa and recently expanded to include other developing nations to increase its influence in global governance.

The proposed BRICS Multilateral Guarantee (BMG) mechanism, incubated within the NDB, has received technical approval from member states and awaits final signoff from BRICS finance ministers, considered a formality, one of the sources said.

Brazil’s Finance Ministry declined to comment on the matter.

The initiative will not require additional capital from member countries at this stage. Instead, it aims to channel existing NDB resources to projects in developing nations.

No initial funding value has been disclosed, but officials involved in the talks expect each dollar in guarantees provided by the NDB to mobilize between five and ten dollars in private capital for pre-approved projects.

“This is a politically significant guarantee instrument. It sends a message that BRICS is alive, working on solutions, strengthening the NDB and responding to today’s global needs,” one source said.

Technical preparations setting up the fund are expected to conclude by the end of this year, paving the way for pilot projects to receive guarantees in 2026.

BRICS countries face challenges common to developing nations in attracting large-scale private investment in infrastructure, climate adaptation and sustainable development.

Officials argue that guarantees issued by the NDB, whose credit rating is higher than that of most member countries, could help mitigate perceived risks for institutional investors and commercial banks.

(Reporting by Marcela Ayres and Bernardo CaramEditing by Manuela Andreoni, Brad Haynes and Louise Heavens)

WASHINGTON — The European Space Agency will soon select the finalists for a competition intended to support the development of new launch vehicles by European companies.

During a panel discussion at the Paris Air Show June 17, ESA Director General Josef Aschbacher said that the agency received 12 proposals for the European Launcher Challenge, a program to award launch contracts to new vehicles as well as fund demonstrations of upgraded vehicles. Companies are eligible for up to 169 million euros ($199 million) each.

Those 12 proposals are currently going through technical reviews by ESA, which will select a group of them for funding consideration at the ESA ministerial conference in late November.

“It will be that not all 12 of these proposals will go the ministerial,” he said. “I cannot predict how many will be left after this evaluation period and therefore how many will go to the ministerial.”

ESA is using an alternative approach to funding the European Launcher Challenge than its traditional georeturn approach, where member states subscribe to programs and are guaranteed contracts in amounts proportional to the funding they provide. Instead, ESA plans to select a group of companies, after which member states at the ministerial will determine which ones they want to fund.

“Quite a few member states are preparing their decisions in case their candidates are selected as being brought forward for funding at the ministerial conference,” he said. “If you ask me the number that will go to the ministerial, it’s too early to say, but we should know in a couple of weeks.”

Toni Tolker-Nielsen, ESA’s director of space transportation, said after the panel that he expected the downselected companies to be announced as soon as July 7.

ESA has not disclosed the companies that did submit European Launcher Challenge proposals, although some companies widely believed to be participating have been announcing milestones in recent weeks to emphasize the progress they are making.

MaiaSpace, a French company developing a launch vehicle with a reusable first stage, hosted several French government ministers at its facilities outside Paris June 13. There, the company announced its intent to build a 10,000-square-meter factory there for producing the vehicle.

Yohann Leroy, chief executive of MaiaSpace, said at the Paris Air Forum earlier the same day that there was demand for small launch vehicles despite competition from rideshare services that have stymied other vehicle developers. Dedicated small launchers are often compared to taxis while rideshares are linked to buses.

“The market for microlaunchers exist. There are a lot of people who are interested in a taxi, provided the taxi can be the price of the bus,” he said. “If you want to succeed in launching a taxi, you have to make the price close to the price of the bus.”

Some companies have hinted they are interested in using the European Launcher Challenge to support work on larger vehicles. “Microlaunchers can never compete in price per kilo” against larger vehicles, said Miguel Bello Mora, chairman of the board of Orbex, said at the same Paris Air Forum panel.

That company is working on its Prime small launcher but has announced plans for a larger vehicle, Proxima, even before the first Prime launch. “We believe there is a gap and there is room for several players,” he said. “Medium size is where we target.”

Not everyone in the European small launch vehicle industry is satisfied with the competition. “It’s a pretty weird program,” said Stanislas Maximin, executive chairman of Latitude, in an interview. He said he felt the competition was either a way to help companies already far advanced in technology and fundraising or those who have struggled to raise private financing.

Nonetheless, he said Latitude submitted a proposal for the competition. “It will help us improve the launch system,” he said, such as increasing the payload capacity of its Zephyr rocket from 200 to 300 kilograms. “It allows us to go faster.”

Latitude, based in France, is also using the competition to expand its presence in Europe. “What it helps us to do is be more European. We’re building relationships with European partners,” he said.

While he said he was concerned the program will be used by some countries to support companies that don’t necessarily need such assistance, “we feel like we are in a good position to win it.”

Related