Category: 3. Business

  • Zoomer: Powering AI Performance at Meta’s Scale Through Intelligent Debugging and Optimization

    Zoomer: Powering AI Performance at Meta’s Scale Through Intelligent Debugging and Optimization

    • We’re introducing Zoomer, Meta’s comprehensive, automated debugging and optimization platform for AI. 
    • Zoomer works across all of our training and inference workloads at Meta and provides deep performance insights that enable energy savings, workflow acceleration, and efficiency gains in our AI infrastructure. 
    • Zoomer has delivered training time reductions, and significant QPS improvements, making it the de-facto tool for AI performance optimization across Meta’s entire AI infrastructure.

    At the scale that Meta’s AI infrastructure operates, poor performance debugging can lead to massive energy inefficiency, increased operational costs, and suboptimal hardware utilization across hundreds of thousands of GPUs. The fundamental challenge is achieving maximum computational efficiency while minimizing waste. Every percentage point of utilization improvement translates to significant capacity gains that can be redirected to innovation and growth.

    Zoomer is Meta’s automated, one-stop-shop platform for performance profiling, debugging, analysis, and optimization of AI training and inference workloads. Since its inception, Zoomer has become the de-facto tool across Meta for GPU workload optimization, generating tens of thousands of profiling reports daily for teams across all of our apps. 

    Why Debugging Performance Matters

    Our AI infrastructure supports large-scale and advanced workloads across a global fleet of GPU clusters, continually evolving to meet the growing scale and complexity of generative AI.

    At the training level it supports a diverse range of workloads, including powering models for ads ranking, content recommendations, and GenAI features.  

    At the inference level, we serve hundreds of trillions of AI model executions per day.

    Operating at this scale means putting a high priority on eliminating GPU underutilization. Training inefficiencies delay model iterations and product launches, while inference bottlenecks limit our ability to serve user requests at scale. Removing resource waste and accelerating workflows helps us train larger models more efficiently, serve more users, and reduce our environmental footprint.

    AI Performance Optimization Using Zoomer

    Zoomer is an automated debugging and optimization platform that works across all of our AI model types (ads recommendations, GenAI, computer vision, etc.) and both training and inference paradigms, providing deep performance insights that enable energy savings, workflow acceleration, and efficiency gains.  

    Zoomer’s architecture consists of three essential layers that work together to deliver comprehensive AI performance insights: 

    Infrastructure and Platform Layer

    The foundation provides the enterprise-grade scalability and reliability needed to profile workloads across Meta’s massive infrastructure. This includes distributed storage systems using Manifold (Meta’s blob storage platform) for trace data, fault-tolerant processing pipelines that handle huge trace files, and low-latency data collection with automatic profiling triggers across thousands of hosts simultaneously. The platform maintains high availability and scale through redundant processing workers and can handle huge numbers of profiling requests during peak usage periods.

    Analytics and Insights Engine

    The core intelligence layer delivers deep analytical capabilities through multiple specialized analyzers. This includes: GPU trace analysis via Kineto integration and NVIDIA DCGM, CPU profiling through StrobeLight integration, host-level metrics analysis via dyno telemetry, communication pattern analysis for distributed training, straggler detection across distributed ranks, memory allocation profiling (including GPU memory snooping), request/response profiling for inference workloads, and much more. The engine automatically detects performance anti-patterns and also provides actionable recommendations.

    Visualization and User Interface Layer

    The presentation layer transforms complex performance data into intuitive, actionable insights. This includes interactive timeline visualizations showing GPU activity across thousands of ranks, multi-iteration analysis for long-running training workloads, drill-down dashboards with percentile analysis across devices, trace data visualization integrated with Perfetto for kernel-level inspection, heat map visualizations for identifying outliers across GPU deployments, and automated insight summaries that highlight critical bottlenecks and optimization opportunities.

    The three essential layers of Zoomer’s architecture.

    How Zoomer Profiling Works: From Trigger to Insights

    Understanding how Zoomer conducts a complete performance analysis provides insight into its sophisticated approach to AI workload optimization.

    Profiling Trigger Mechanisms

    Zoomer operates through both automatic and on-demand profiling strategies tailored to different workload types. For training workloads, which involve multiple iterations and can run for days or weeks, Zoomer automatically triggers profiling around iteration 550-555 to capture stable-state performance while avoiding startup noise. For inference workloads, profiling can be triggered on-demand for immediate debugging or through integration with automated load testing and benchmarking systems for continuous monitoring.

    Comprehensive Data Capture

    During each profiling session, Zoomer simultaneously collects multiple data streams to build a holistic performance picture: 

    • GPU Performance Metrics: SM utilization, GPU memory utilization, GPU busy time, memory bandwidth, Tensor Core utilization, power consumption, clock frequencies, and power consumption data via DCGM integration.
    • Detailed Execution Traces: Kernel-level GPU operations, memory transfers, CUDA API calls, and communication collectives via PyTorch Profiler and Kineto.
    • Host-Level Performance Data: CPU utilization, memory usage, network I/O, storage access patterns, and system-level bottlenecks via dyno telemetry.
    • Application-Level Annotations: Training iterations, forward/backward passes, optimizer steps, data loading phases, and custom user annotations.
    • Inference-Specific Data: Rate of inference requests, server latency, active requests, GPU memory allocation patterns, request latency breakdowns via Strobelight’s Crochet profiler, serving parameter analysis, and thrift request-level profiling.
    • Communication Analysis: NCCL collective operations, inter-node communication patterns, and network utilization for distributed workloads

    Distributed Analysis Pipeline

    Raw profiling data flows through sophisticated processing systems that deliver multiple types of automated analysis including:

    • Straggler Detection: Identifies slow ranks in distributed training through comparative analysis of execution timelines and communication patterns.
    • Bottleneck Analysis: Automatically detects CPU-bound, GPU-bound, memory-bound, or communication-bound performance issues.
    • Critical Path Analysis: Systematically identifies the longest execution paths to focus optimization efforts on highest-impact opportunities.
    • Anti-Pattern Detection: Rule-based systems that identify common efficiency issues and generate specific recommendations.
    • Parallelism Analysis: Deep understanding of tensor, pipeline, data, and expert parallelism interactions for large-scale distributed training.
    • Memory Analysis: Comprehensive analysis of GPU memory usage patterns, allocation tracking, and leak detection.
    • Load Imbalance Analysis: Detects workload distribution issues across distributed ranks and recommendations for optimization.

    Multi-Format Output Generation

    Results are presented through multiple interfaces tailored to different user needs: interactive timeline visualizations showing activity across all ranks and hosts, comprehensive metrics dashboards with drill-down capabilities and percentile analysis, trace viewers integrated with Perfetto for detailed kernel inspection, automated insights summaries highlighting key bottlenecks and recommendations, and actionable notebooks that users can clone to rerun jobs with suggested optimizations.

    Specialized Workload Support

    For massive distributed training for specialized workloads, like GenAI, Zoomer contains a purpose-built platform supporting LLM workloads that offers specialized capabilities including GPU efficiency heat maps and N-dimensional parallelism visualization. For inference, specialized analysis covers everything from single GPU models, soon expanding to massive distributed inference across thousands of servers.

    A Glimpse Into Advanced Zoomer Capabilities

    Zoomer offers an extensive suite of advanced capabilities designed for different AI workload types and scales. While a comprehensive overview of all features would require multiple blog posts, here’s a glimpse at some of the most compelling capabilities that demonstrate Zoomer’s depth:

    Training Powerhouse Features:

    • Straggler Analysis: Helps identify ranks in distributed training jobs that are significantly slower than others, causing overall job delays due to synchronization bottlenecks. Zoomer provides information that helps diagnose root causes like sharding imbalance or hardware issues.
    • Critical Path Analysis: Identification of the longest execution paths in PyTorch applications, enabling accurate performance improvement projections
    • Advanced Trace Manipulation: Sophisticated tools for compression, filtering, combination, and segmentation of massive trace files (2GB+ per rank), enabling analysis of previously impossible-to-process large-scale training jobs

    Inference Excellence Features:

    • Single-Click QPS Optimization: A workflow that identifies bottlenecks and triggers automated load tests with one click, reducing optimization time while delivering QPS improvements of +2% to +50% across different models, depending on model characteristics. 
    • Request-Level Deep Dive: Integration with Crochet profiler provides Thrift request-level analysis, enabling identification of queue time bottlenecks and serving inefficiencies that traditional metrics miss.
    • Realtime Memory Profiling: GPU memory allocation tracking, providing live insights into memory leaks, allocation patterns, and optimization opportunities.

    GenAI Specialized Features:

    • LLM Zoomer for Scale: A purpose-built platform supporting 100k+ GPU workloads with N-dimensional parallelism visualization, GPU efficiency heat maps across thousands of devices, and specialized analysis for tensor, pipeline, data, and expert parallelism interactions.
    • Post-Training Workflow Support: Enhanced capabilities for GenAI post-training tasks including SFT, DPO, and ARPG workflows with generator and trainer profiling separation.

    Universal Intelligence Features:

    • Holistic Trace Analysis (HTA): Advanced framework for diagnosing distributed training bottlenecks across communication overhead, workload imbalance, and kernel inefficiencies, with automatic load balancing recommendations.
    • Zoomer Actionable Recommendations Engine (Zoomer AR): Automated detection of efficiency anti-patterns with machine learning-driven recommendation systems that generate auto-fix diffs, optimization notebooks, and one-click job re-launches with suggested improvements.
    • Multi-Hardware Profiling: Native support across NVIDIA GPUs, AMD MI300X, MTIA, and CPU-only workloads with consistent analysis and optimization recommendations regardless of hardware platform.

    Zoomer’s Optimization Impact: From Debugging to Energy Efficiency

    Performance debugging with Zoomer creates a cascading effect that transforms low-level optimizations into massive efficiency gains. 

    The optimization pathway flows from: identifying bottlenecks → improving key metrics → accelerating workflows → reducing resource consumption → saving energy and costs.

    Zoomer’s Training Optimization Pipeline

    Zoomer’s training analysis identifies bottlenecks in GPU utilization, memory bandwidth, and communication patterns. 

    Example of Training Efficiency Wins: 

    • Algorithmic Optimizations: We delivered power savings through systematic efficiency improvements across the training fleet, by fixing reliability issues for low efficiency jobs.
    • Training Time Reduction Success: In 2024, we observed a 75% training time reduction for Ads relevance models, leading to 78% reduction in power consumption.
    • Memory Optimizations: One-line code changes for performance issues due to inefficient memory copy identified by Zoomer, delivered 20% QPS improvements with minimal engineering effort. 

    Inference Optimization Pipeline:

    Inference debugging focuses on latency reduction, throughput optimization, and serving efficiency. Zoomer identifies opportunities in kernel execution, memory access patterns, and serving parameter tuning to maximize requests per GPU.

    Inference Efficiency Wins:

    • GPU and CPU Serving parameters Improvements: Automated GPU and CPU bottleneck identification and parameter tuning, leading to 10% to 45% reduction in power consumption.
    • QPS Optimization: GPU trace analysis used to boost serving QPS and optimize serving capacity.

    Zoomer’s GenAI and Large-Scale Impact

    For massive distributed workloads, even small optimizations compound dramatically. 32k GPU benchmark optimizations achieved 30% speedups through broadcast issue resolution, while 64k GPU configurations delivered 25% speedups in just one day of optimization.

    The Future of AI Performance Debugging

    As AI workloads expand in size and complexity, Zoomer is advancing to meet new challenges focused on several innovation fronts: broadening unified performance insights across heterogeneous hardware (including MTIA and next-gen accelerators), building advanced analyzers for proactive optimization, enabling inference performance tuning through serving param optimization, and democratizing optimization with automated, intuitive tools for all engineers. As Meta’s AI infrastructure continues its rapid growth, Zoomer plays an important role in helping us innovate efficiently and sustainably.


    Continue Reading

  • Here are real AI stocks to invest in and speculative ones to avoid

    Here are real AI stocks to invest in and speculative ones to avoid

    Continue Reading

  • Analog Devices to Participate in the UBS Global Technology Conference

    Analog Devices to Participate in the UBS Global Technology Conference

    WILMINGTON, Mass., Nov. 21, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — Analog Devices, Inc. (Nasdaq: ADI) today announced that the Company’s Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer, Richard Puccio, will discuss business topics and trends at the UBS Global Technology Conference, taking place at the Phoenician Hotel, located in Scottsdale, Arizona on Tuesday, December 2, 2025, at 10:15 a.m. MST.

    The webcast for the conference may be accessed live via the Investor Relations section of Analog Devices’ website at investor.analog.com. An archived replay will also be available following the webcast for at least 30 days.

    About Analog Devices, Inc.

    Analog Devices, Inc. (NASDAQ: ADI) is a global semiconductor leader that bridges the physical and digital worlds to enable breakthroughs at the Intelligent Edge. ADI combines analog, digital, and software technologies into solutions that help drive advancements in digitized factories, mobility, and digital healthcare, combat climate change, and reliably connect humans and the world. With revenue of more than $9 billion in FY24 and approximately 24,000 people globally, ADI ensures today’s innovators stay Ahead of What’s Possible. Learn more at www.analog.com and on LinkedIn and Twitter (X).

    For more information, please contact:
    Jeff Ambrosi
    Senior Director of Investor Relations
    Analog Devices, Inc.
    781-461-3282
    [email protected]

    SOURCE Analog Devices, Inc.


    Continue Reading

  • The first-ever 3x levered bitcoin funds are launching in Europe next week. The timing couldn’t be worse.

    The first-ever 3x levered bitcoin funds are launching in Europe next week. The timing couldn’t be worse.

    By Gordon Gottsegen

    Bitcoin has dropped as much as 35% from its October high

    Triple leverage and elevated volatility around bitcoin could be a dangerous combination.

    Bitcoin is having a bad week on top of a rough month: The benchmark cryptocurrency is currently down more than 33% from its October all-time high of $126,272.76, wiping out more than $1.2 trillion in market cap.

    If you somehow foresaw this huge drop in the price of bitcoin (BTCUSD) and took out a bearish position, you could’ve made a lot of money on your trade. If you guessed incorrectly, you would’ve lost a lot. However, thanks to a new leveraged financial product, traders will be able to up the ante on bitcoin’s swings – either multiplying their money, or potentially losing everything.

    Exchange-traded-fund analyst Eric Balchunas posted on X that he spotted listings for new triple-leveraged bitcoin and ether (ETHUSD) ETFs, meaning that traders would be able to triple their exposure to the upside or downside for both cryptocurrencies, depending on which product they trade.

    According to Balchunas, these are the first tripled-leverage bitcoin and ether ETFs to launch, and are coming to European markets next week.

    Leveraged ETFs have been growing in popularity recently, with ETF providers filing for triple- and even quintuple-leveraged ETFs in the U.S. These products offer traders the ability to multiply earnings on daily price swings, but they also risk taking heavy losses if the underlying asset swings too far in the wrong direction.

    “These leveraged products, not only in crypto but stocks also, are nothing more than gambling instruments. The SEC needs to fulfill their duty of investor protection and limit them. What’s to stop issuers from going 5x, 10x or 100x?” Joe Saluzzi, co-head of equity trading at Themis Trading, told MarketWatch.

    Leveraged ETFs bring even more risk to volatile assets like crypto. There have been days in the past where specific crypto tokens have more than doubled, or bear markets where they’ve dropped by half. All it takes is a 33% move in the wrong direction for someone trading a triple-leveraged ETF to lose their money.

    “If it’s tracking correctly, you’d be down 99%. … You will basically be wiped out,” Todd Sohn, ETF strategist at Strategas Asset Management, told MarketWatch. “The odds of that happening when you are playing with more volatile instruments has clearly increased.”

    Some investors in Europe learned this lesson the hard way last month. On Oct. 6, the GraniteShares 3x Short AMD Daily exchange-traded product was terminated by its issuer after shares of Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD) rose by more than 33% intraday. This product was an inverse fund; such funds climb when the price of the underlying asset falls, and decline when the price of the underlying asset rises. So, the 33% intraday swing in AMD shares drove the value of the exchange-traded product to zero.

    Although the triple-leveraged bitcoin and ether ETFs would be the first in the market, investors in the U.S. already have access to double-leveraged ETFs like 2x Bitcoin Strategy ETF BITX, ProShares Ultra Bitcoin ETF BITU and T-Rex 2X Long Bitcoin Daily Target ETF BTCL. And on a week like this one, when bitcoin is falling, those ETFs fall even more: All three of them have lost more than 20% this week.

    Most of these leveraged financial products are intended to be held for short durations. According to filings for the products, the advertised leverage only applies to daily moves, meaning holding them for longer periods can cause returns to deviate meaningfully from what one might expect. Over the long term, some of these funds have even underperformed their underlying stocks or assets.

    Leveraged ETFs appeal to a specific kind of trader with a very high tolerance for risk. But not everyone who comes across these products may know that. That’s why Sohn said it’s important for traders to “know the ingredients” of leveraged ETFs before trading them, adding that investors should only trade what they’re willing to lose.

    “If you are betting – trading, whatever you want to call it – on a levered product and you get wiped out, make sure it’s not going to ruin your life,” Sohn said.

    -Gordon Gottsegen

    This content was created by MarketWatch, which is operated by Dow Jones & Co. MarketWatch is published independently from Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal.

    (END) Dow Jones Newswires

    11-21-25 1559ET

    Copyright (c) 2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

    Continue Reading

  • Dollar slips against yen but heads for broad weekly rise – Reuters

    1. Dollar slips against yen but heads for broad weekly rise  Reuters
    2. Dollar weakens against yen  Business Recorder
    3. Policy Showdown: Yen’s Decline Challenges Japan’s Economic Unity  Bitget
    4. Japan finance minister signals chance of currency intervention  TradingView
    5. Japanese Yen struggles to lure buyers; seems vulnerable amid BoJ uncertainty  FXStreet

    Continue Reading

  • Why trouble for the biggest foreign buyer of U.S. debt could ripple through America’s bond market

    Why trouble for the biggest foreign buyer of U.S. debt could ripple through America’s bond market

    By Vivien Lou Chen

    Developments in Japan are creating a risk that investors in the U.S. Treasury market may one day pull the rug out by keeping more of their savings at home

    Why turmoil around Japan’s new government could wash up in U.S. financial markets.

    Recent developments overseas have the potential to complicate the White House’s agenda to bring down borrowing costs, while heightening competition for investors in the U.S. and Japanese bond markets.

    Aggressive fiscal-stimulus efforts by the cabinet of Japan’s first female prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, have created a spike in long-dated yields of Japanese government bonds and further weakness in the yen (USDJPY) in the past few weeks. It’s a situation that is being likened to the September-October 2022 crisis in the U.K., which stemmed from a crisis in confidence over a package of unfunded tax cuts proposed by then-Prime Minister Liz Truss’s government.

    Read: Liz Truss redux? Simultaneous drop for Japanese currency and bonds draws eerie parallels

    The U.S. needs to manage the cost of interest payments given a more than $38 trillion national debt, and this is a primary motivation for why the Trump administration wants to bring down long-term Treasury yields. Last week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a speech in New York that the U.S. is making substantial progress in keeping most market-based rates down. He also said the 10-year “term premium,” or additional compensation demanded by investors to hold the long-dated maturity, is basically unchanged. Longer-duration yields matter because they provide a peg for borrowing rates used by U.S. households, businesses and the government.

    Developments in Japan are now creating the risk that U.S. yields could rise alongside Japan’s yields. This week, Japanese government-bond yields hit their highest levels in almost two decades, with the country’s 10-year rate BX:TMBMKJP-10Y spiking above 1.78% to its highest level in more than 17 years. The 40-year yield BX:TMBMKJP-40Y climbed to an all-time high just above 3.7%.

    In the U.S., 2-year BX:TMUBMUSD02Y, 10-year BX:TMUBMUSD10Y and 30-year U.S. yields BX:TMUBMUSD30Y finished Thursday’s session at their lowest levels of the past one to two weeks, and kept falling further on Friday. The benchmark 10-year yield was about 4.06% on Friday.

    There’s a risk now that U.S. yields may not fall as much as they otherwise might after factoring in market-implied expectations for a series of interest-rate cuts by the Federal Reserve into 2026.

    Japan’s large U.S. footprint

    Treasury yields are not going to necessarily follow rates on Japanese government bonds higher “on a one-for-one basis,” but there might be a limit on how low they can go, said Adam Turnquist, chief technical strategist at LPL Financial. He added that the impact of Japanese developments on the U.S. bond market could take years to play out, but “we care now because of the direction Japan’s policy is going in” and the possibility that this impact might occur even sooner.

    Some of the catalysts that usually tend to push Treasury yields lower, such as any commentary from U.S. monetary policymakers that suggests the Fed might be inclined to cut rates, “might be muted because of the increased value of foreign debt,” Turnquist added.

    U.S. government debt was rallying for a second day on Friday, pushing most yields beyond their lowest levels of the past one or two weeks, after New York Fed President John Williams said there is room to cut interest rates in the near term.

    All three major U.S. stock indexes DJIA SPX COMP traded sharply higher Friday, but remained on pace for weekly losses, as investors attempted to calm doubts over the artificial-intelligence trade. Separately, some traders suggested bitcoin (BTCUSD) bets were a factor in Thursday’s stock-market selloff.

    The troubling spike in yields on Japanese government bonds hasn’t fully spilled over into the U.S. bond market yet, but it remains a risk. “A repeat of the Truss episode is what people are afraid of,” said Marc Chandler, chief market strategist and managing director at Bannockburn Capital Markets.

    Concerns about Japan gained added significance on Friday, when Takaichi’s cabinet approved a 21.3 trillion yen (or roughly $140 billion) economic stimulus package, which Reuters described as lavish. The amount of new spending being injected into the country’s economy from a supplementary budget, much of which is not repurposed from existing funds, is 17.7 trillion yen ($112 billion).

    Anxiety over Takaichi’s stimulus efforts has resulted in a Japanese yen that has weakened against its major peers and fallen to a 10-month low ahead of Friday’s session, and in a spike in the country’s long-dated yields. Yields on 30-year BX:TMBMKJP-30Y Japanese government debt have risen this month to 3.33%.

    Japan is the biggest foreign holder of Treasurys, with a roughly 13% share, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Treasury Department, and the concern is that the country’s investors might one day pull the rug by keeping more of their savings at home.

    Bond-auction anxiety

    Earlier in the week, a weak 20-year auction in Japan was cited as one reason why U.S. Treasury yields were a touch lower in early New York trading, which means that demand for U.S. government paper remained in place. Global investors are often incentivized to move their money based on which country offers the highest yields and best overall value.

    “The conventional wisdom is that as yields rise in Japan, the Japanese are more likely to keep their savings at home rather than export it,” Chandler said. “The Japanese have been buyers of Treasurys and U.S. stocks, and if they decide to keep their money at home, those U.S. markets could lose a bid.”

    For now, Japanese investors, which include insurers and pension funds, appear to be continuing to export their savings by buying more foreign government debt like Treasurys. Data from the U.S. Treasury Department shows that as of September, Japanese investors held just under $1.19 trillion in Treasurys, a number which has been climbing every month this year and is up from about $1.06 trillion last December.

    One reason for this is the exchange rate. The yen has depreciated against almost every major currency this year. Japanese investors have been buying U.S. Treasurys because they can diversify against the yen, which is the weakest of the G-10 currencies on an unhedged basis, according to Chandler.

    If concerns about the Takaichi government’s stimulus efforts translate into even higher yields in Japan, this could incentivize local investors to keep more of their savings at home, but might also mean rising yields for countries like the U.S.

    -Vivien Lou Chen

    This content was created by MarketWatch, which is operated by Dow Jones & Co. MarketWatch is published independently from Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal.

    (END) Dow Jones Newswires

    11-21-25 1541ET

    Copyright (c) 2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

    Continue Reading

  • Oil Falls on Ukraine Peace Plan as Russia Sanctions Set to Start – Bloomberg.com

    1. Oil Falls on Ukraine Peace Plan as Russia Sanctions Set to Start  Bloomberg.com
    2. Oil prices settle down at lowest in a month as US seeks Russia-Ukraine peace deal  Reuters
    3. Crude oil price today: WTI price bearish at European opening  FXStreet
    4. Oil Prices Have Fallen Sharply  Rigzone
    5. Bearish Momentum Builds in Oil Markets as China Stockpiles Crude  Crude Oil Prices Today | OilPrice.com

    Continue Reading

  • Investors Just Endured a Brutally Volatile Week. What’s Next For the Stock Market?

    Investors Just Endured a Brutally Volatile Week. What’s Next For the Stock Market?

    Michael Nagle / Bloomberg via Getty Images

    A strong earnings report from AI bellwether Nvidia wasn’t enough to pull tech stocks out of their slump this week.

    • Tech stocks slumped this week as investors’ skepticism about the AI rally overpowered another strong earnings report from Nvidia, though many experts are optimistic that earnings growth will bring investors back.

    • Federal Reserve officials, meanwhile, are deeply divided about what to do at their policy meeting next month, adding uncertainty to an already anxious market.

    The stock market is in limbo. It could be there for a while.

    After weeks of softness in tech stocks, bulls were hoping a blowout earnings report from Nvidia (NVDA) would revive the faltering AI trade. They got strong earnings—but not the payout. Stocks sold off Thursday as the Cboe Volatility Index (VIX), or the “Fear Index,” jumped to its highest level since April’s tariff debacle.

    Stocks rebounded on Friday, but many of Wall Street’s favorite AI stocks—Nvidia, Broadcom (AVGO), Palantir (PLTR), Oracle (ORCL), and Vistra (VST)—fell yet again, indicating AI sentiment remains in the dumps. And market experts are now trying to navigate the road ahead after a week of confusing signals and volatile action.

    Tech stocks have fueled the bull market of the past three years, and will have a big impact on market sentiment and stock performance going forward. The Federal Reserve’s interest rate decision next month will also be pivotal in setting a direction for stocks.

    The AI rally has been imperiled before. Tech stocks slumped in July 2024 amid concerns about over-investing in AI, but they found their footing and moved higher through the end of the year. Overspending fears resurfaced in January when Chinese startup DeepSeek burst onto the scene. That setback, too, was short-lived.

    “We are going through another ‘DeepSeek Moment,’” wrote Wedbush analyst Dan Ives, one of Wall Street’s ardent tech bulls, on Friday. Ives compared today’s AI bubble debate to historical examples of tech skeptics getting it wrong, like dismissals of the iPhone in 2008 and Microsoft’s pivot to cloud computing in 2014.

    “This AI Revolution is just beginning today,” he wrote. “We believe tech stocks and the AI winners should be bought given our view this is Year 3 of what will be a 10-year cycle.”

    “The big risk to the tech sector—and thus the broader equity market—is not a sudden collapse in valuations,” wrote Barclays analyst Ajay Rajadhyaksha on Thursday. “It is that earnings—which have been on [an] absolute roll over the last 3 years—suddenly start to disappoint, which then sparks an exodus.”

    Rajadhyaksha doesn’t think such an outcome is likely, though he concedes there are AI-related risks that investors should keep an eye on. Tech companies are increasingly turning to credit markets to finance their AI investments, which, until recently, have been funded primarily by cash flows. That increases the wider economy’s exposure to the AI boom, and adds to tech’s interest-rate sensitivity. Power constraints, he said, could also force a slowdown in AI spending, possibly dealing a blow to “picks and shovels” suppliers like Nvidia.

    “A major change in market leadership appears unlikely absent a significant dislocation in the macro environment,” concludes Rajadhyaksha.

    The Federal Reserve’s December policy meeting could be another overhang that keeps stocks wayward in the next few weeks. Policymakers appear deeply divided on how aggressively to lower interest rates. Some see in signs of a weakening labor market good reason to cut rates despite evidence inflation is ticking higher. Their hawkish counterparts say economic uncertainty urges caution. The government shutdown has left behind gaps in official data.

    Yesterday’s September jobs report—the last snapshot of the labor market Fed officials will see before their meeting begins Dec. 9—sent conflicting signals. The U.S. added more jobs than expected, but the unemployment rate rose to its highest level in four years. Deutsche Bank economists on Thursday called the report a Rorschach test that gives each camp within the Fed plenty of ammunition to make its case.

    Experts say that the Fed’s rate decisions could be decisive in renewing or extinguishing the AI rally. Rate cuts, they argue, would likely fuel the rally by injecting liquidity into the market. If rates remain where they are, tech stocks could struggle to regain their momentum.

    Investors are highly uncertain about the Fed’s next steps. Futures market data has the odds of a December rate cut, considered a near certainty a month ago, below 40% yesterday. Those odds jumped back to 70% on Friday after one official indicated he was open to cutting next month.

    “In a vacuum of unclear rate and labor-market signals, markets are prone to exaggerated volatility, with short-term trading dominated by sentiment and technical structure,” wrote Bitunix analysts.

    Read the original article on Investopedia

    Continue Reading

  • Squire Patton Boggs Advises on Winning Transactions from The Bond Buyers Deal of the Year Awards | 11 | 2025 | News

    Squire Patton Boggs Advises on Winning Transactions from The Bond Buyers Deal of the Year Awards | 11 | 2025 | News

    The Bond Buyer has announced the recipients of its annual Deal of the Year Awards, honoring outstanding achievement in municipal finance across 10 regional and supplemental categories. Squire Patton Boggs advised on three winning transactions recognized in the Midwest Region, Green Financing and Public-Private Partnership Financing categories.

    In the “Midwest Region” category, the firm served as bond and disclosure counsel to the Columbus Regional Airport for its approximately $1.21 billion issuance of AMT and non-AMT airport revenue bonds as its inaugural issuance to support a $2 billion capital program at John Glenn Columbus International. The transaction generated $4.11 billion in orders from 88 investors, expanding demand for AMT paper and allowing the Authority to advance $175 million of additional projects.

    The Squire Patton Boggs team was led by public and infrastructure finance partner Christopher J. Franzmann.

    In the “Green Financing” category, the firm served as co-bond counsel to the New York Transportation Development Corporation for its $1.95 billion green bond issuance for the JFK International Airport Terminal 6 Redevelopment. The financing advances a high-efficiency terminal program featuring rooftop solar, fully electric ground support, and stormwater capture and reuse. The transaction drew strong multi-segment investor demand that allowed the offering to be sizably upsized.

    The Squire Patton Boggs team was led by global head of transportation infrastructure finance and public and infrastructure finance partner Alethia N. Nancoo and public and infrastructure finance practice group leader and partner Catherine Z. Romanchek.

    In the “Public-Private Partnership Financing” category, the firm represented a consortium comprised of ACS Infrastructure, Acciona, and Meridiam for the Georgia SR 400 Express Lanes Project, which combined a record issuance of tax-exempt AMT bonds, the largest TIFIA loan to date, and a 50-year concession that delivered a $3.8 billion upfront concession fee to the State of Georgia while funding 16 miles of dynamically tolled lanes and future bus rapid transit improvements. The multibillion-dollar transportation project aims to improve safety, reduce congestion, and support multimodal mobility across metro Atlanta.

    The Squire Patton Boggs team was led by public and infrastructure finance counsel Gregory V. Johnson, Denver managing partner and environmental, safety and health global chair Peter S. Gould, and public policy partner Austin Harrison.

    “With a century-long tradition at the forefront of public finance, Squire Patton Boggs has uniquely positioned itself as a market leader, providing trusted bond counsel opinions,” said Ms. Romanchek. “Our diverse and innovative engagements showcase the strength of our Public & Infrastructure Finance team’s deep bench of talent and expertise, as well as the breadth of our national practice spanning more than a dozen offices. We are proud to contribute to projects that are shaping the municipal finance market and driving growth in the American economy.”

    The 2025 Deal of the Year Awards will be held on December 2 at Guastavino’s in New York City. All award winners are also finalists for the national Deal of the Year award, which will be announced at the close of the gala. Click here to view The Bond Buyer’s full list of honorees (subscription required).

    Continue Reading

  • U.S. FDA Approves PADCEV® plus Keytruda® for Certain Patients with Bladder Cancer

    • PADCEV plus Keytruda is the first and only approved perioperative treatment regimen that can significantly improve survival over current standard of care (surgery alone) in cisplatin-ineligible patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer
    • Approval is based on unprecedented data from the pivotal Phase 3 EV-303 trial showing a 60% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence, progression or death and a 50% reduction in the risk of death compared to surgery alone
    • Represents the first and only ADC and PD-1 inhibitor regimen for this patient population and a potential new standard of care

    Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) and Astellas Pharma Inc. (TSE: 4503, President and CEO: Naoki Okamura, “Astellas”) today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved PADCEV® (enfortumab vedotin-ejfv), a Nectin-4 directed antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), in combination with the PD-1 inhibitor Keytruda® (pembrolizumab) or Keytruda QLEX™ (pembrolizumab and berahyaluronidase alfa-pmph), as neoadjuvant treatment and then continued after cystectomy (surgery) as adjuvant treatment for adult patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) who are ineligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.i The approval of this perioperative (before and after surgery) treatment was based on results from the pivotal Phase 3 EV-303 clinical trial (also known as KEYNOTE-905), which were presented during a Presidential Symposium at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2025.

    Dr. Matthew Galsky, Lillian and Howard Stratton Professor of Medicine, Director of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, Mount Sinai Tisch Cancer Center, and EV-303 Investigator 
    “Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab is poised to address a critical unmet need. Half of patients with MIBC may experience cancer recurrence even after having their bladder removed, and many of these patients are ineligible to receive cisplatin. This approval, based on striking event-free and overall survival benefits, may represent an important practice-changing advance for these patients who’ve had no new options in decades.”

    Jeff Legos, PhD, MBA, Chief Oncology Officer, Pfizer 
    “Today’s approval, granted months earlier than anticipated, ushers in a new era of treatment for cisplatin-ineligible patients with MIBC who have long been underserved by existing treatments. PADCEV plus pembrolizumab is the first and only FDA-approved perioperative treatment regimen to demonstrate a meaningful survival advantage compared to surgery alone, positioning it to reshape the treatment landscape and bring new hope to patients and families.”

    In the EV-303 study, perioperative treatment with PADCEV plus pembrolizumab resulted in a 60% reduction in the risk of tumor recurrence, progression or death compared to surgery alone, meeting the primary endpoint of event-free survival (EFS) (Hazard Ratio [HR]=0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28-0.57; p<0.0001).The probability of remaining event free was 74.7% for patients who received the combination and 39.4% for patients treated with surgery only. The estimated median EFS has not yet been reached for the combination arm versus 15.7 months for the surgery arm. Data from the key secondary endpoint of overall survival (OS) showed that perioperative treatment with PADCEV plus pembrolizumab also resulted in a 50% reduction in the risk of death as compared to surgery alone (HR=0.50; 95% CI: 0.33-0.74; p=0.0002). The probability of survival at two years was 79.7% for patients who received the combination relative to 63.1% for patients treated with surgery only. The estimated median OS has not yet been reached for the combination arm versus 41.7 months for the surgery arm.ii

    Moitreyee Chatterjee-Kishore, PhD, MBA, Head of Oncology Development, Astellas 
    “Building on the combination’s established role in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer where it is has become standard of care in the U.S., PADCEV plus pembrolizumab now has the potential to redefine care in an earlier disease setting as the only antibody-drug conjugate and PD-1 inhibitor regimen for cisplatin-ineligible patients with MIBC. The approval underscores our unwavering commitment to expanding the reach of this innovative combination to more eligible patients with bladder cancer.”

    The safety results in EV-303 were consistent with those previously reported for this combination, and there were no new safety signals. The most common (≥20%) adverse reactions, including laboratory abnormalities, in patients treated with PADCEV plus intravenous pembrolizumab were increased glucose, decreased hemoglobin, increased aspartate aminotransferase, rash, increased alanine aminotransferase, fatigue, pruritus, increased creatinine, decreased sodium, decreased lymphocytes, peripheral neuropathy, increased potassium, alopecia, dysgeusia, diarrhea, decreased appetite, constipation, nausea, decreased phosphate, urinary tract infection, dry eye, and decreased weight. Grade ≥ 3 AEs due to any cause occurred in 71.3% of patients treated in the combination arm and 45.9% of patients who were in the surgery arm.ii

    Please see Important Safety Information at the end of this press release, including BOXED WARNING for PADCEV (enfortumab vedotin-ejfv).

    Perioperative PADCEV plus pembrolizumab is also being evaluated in cisplatin-eligible patients with MIBC in the EV-304 Phase 3 clinical trial (also known as KEYNOTE-B15).

    About the EV-303/KEYNOTE-905 Trial 
    The EV-303 trial (also known as KEYNOTE-905) is an ongoing, open-label, randomized, three-arm, controlled, Phase 3 study evaluating neoadjuvant and adjuvant PADCEV in combination with pembrolizumab or neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab versus surgery alone in patients with MIBC who are either not eligible for or declined cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive either neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab (arm A), surgery alone (arm B) or neoadjuvant and adjuvant PADCEV in combination with pembrolizumab (arm C).iii

    The primary endpoint of this trial is EFS between arm C and arm B, defined as time from randomization to the first of: disease progression preventing curative surgery, failure to undergo surgery for participants with muscle invasive residual disease, incomplete surgical resection, local or distant recurrence after surgery, or death.i Key secondary endpoints include OS and pCR rate between arm C and arm B, as well as EFS, OS and pCR rate between arm A and arm B.viii

    For more information on the global EV-303 trial, go to clinicaltrials.gov.

    About Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer 
    Bladder cancer is the ninth most common cancer worldwide, diagnosed in more than 614,000 people each year globally, including an estimated 85,000 people in the U.S.iv,v MIBC represents approximately 30% of all bladder cancer cases.vi The standard treatment for patients with MIBC is neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy followed by surgery, which has been shown to prolong survival.vii However, up to half of patients who are diagnosed with MIBC are not eligible to receive cisplatin and face limited treatment options, typically undergoing surgery without any systemic treatment.viii Of those who do undergo bladder surgery, one third are cisplatin-ineligible.

    About PADCEV® (enfortumab vedotin-ejfv) 
    PADCEV® (enfortumab vedotin-ejfv) is a first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) that is directed against Nectin-4, a protein located on the surface of cells and highly expressed in bladder cancer.ix Nonclinical data suggest the anticancer activity of PADCEV is due to its binding to Nectin-4-expressing cells, followed by the internalization and release of the anti-tumor agent monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE) into the cell, which result in the cell not reproducing (cell cycle arrest) and in programmed cell death (apoptosis).i

    PADCEV plus pembrolizumab is also approved for the treatment of adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC) in the United States, Japan and a number of other countries around the world. In the European Union, the combination is approved for the treatment of adult patients with la/mUC who are eligible for platinum-containing chemotherapy. PADCEV is also approved as a single agent for the treatment of adult patients with la/mUC who have previously received a PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor and platinum-containing chemotherapy or are ineligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and have previously received one or more prior lines of therapy.i

    BOXED WARNING: SERIOUS SKIN REACTIONS

    • PADCEV (enfortumab vedotin-ejfv) can cause severe and fatal cutaneous adverse reactions including Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN), which occurred predominantly during the first cycle of treatment, but may occur later.
    • Closely monitor patients for skin reactions.
    • Immediately withhold PADCEV and consider referral for specialized care for suspected SJS or TEN or severe skin reactions.
    • Permanently discontinue PADCEV in patients with confirmed SJS or TEN; or Grade 4 or recurrent Grade 3 skin reactions.

    INDICATIONS

    PADCEV, in combination with pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab and berahyaluronidase alfa-pmph, as neoadjuvant treatment and then continued after cystectomy as adjuvant treatment, is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) who are ineligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy.

    PADCEV, in combination with pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab and berahyaluronidase alfa-pmph, is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC).

    PADCEV, as a single agent, is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with locally advanced or mUC who:

    • have previously received a programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor and platinum-containing chemotherapy, or
    • are ineligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy and have previously received one or more prior lines of therapy.

    IMPORTANT SAFETY INFORMATION

    WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS

    Skin reactions Severe cutaneous adverse reactions, including fatal cases of SJS or TEN occurred in patients treated with PADCEV. SJS and TEN occurred predominantly during the first cycle of treatment but may occur later.

    Skin reactions occurred in 61% (all grades) of the 167 patients treated with PADCEV in combination with intravenous pembrolizumab for the treatment of MIBC in clinical trials. The majority of skin reactions that occurred included rash and maculo-papular rash. Grade 3-4 skin reactions occurred in 10% of patients (Grade 3: 9%, Grade 4: 1.2%), including rash, maculo-papular rash, toxic skin eruption, dermatitis exfoliative generalized, erythema, exfoliative rash, skin toxicity, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and toxic erythema of chemotherapy. A fatal reaction of toxic epidermal necrolysis occurred in one patient (0.6%). The median time to onset of severe skin reactions was 0.6 months (range: 0.2 to 8.8 months). Skin reactions led to discontinuation of PADCEV in 10% of patients. Of the patients who experienced a skin reaction and had data regarding resolution (n=102), 83% had complete resolution and 17% had residual skin reactions at their last evaluation. Of the patients with residual skin reactions at last evaluation, 29% (5/17) had Grade ≥2 skin reactions.

    Skin reactions occurred in 70% (all grades) of the 564 patients treated with PADCEV in combination with intravenous pembrolizumab for the treatment of locally advanced or mUC in clinical trials. The majority of skin reactions that occurred included maculo-papular rash, macular rash, and papular rash. Grade 3-4 skin reactions occurred in 17% of patients (Grade 3: 16%, Grade 4: 1%), including maculo-papular rash, bullous dermatitis, dermatitis, exfoliative dermatitis, pemphigoid, rash, erythematous rash, macular rash, and papular rash. A fatal reaction of bullous dermatitis occurred in one patient (0.2%). The median time to onset of severe skin reactions was 1.7 months (range: 0.1 to 17.2 months). Skin reactions led to discontinuation of PADCEV in 6% of patients. Of the patients who experienced a skin reaction and had data regarding resolution (n= 391), 59% had complete resolution and 41% had residual skin reactions at their last evaluation. Of the patients with residual skin reactions at last evaluation, 27% (43/159) had Grade ≥2 skin reactions.

    Skin reactions occurred in 58% (all grades) of the 720 patients treated with PADCEV as a single agent in clinical trials. Twenty-three percent (23%) of patients had maculo-papular rash and 34% had pruritus. Grade 3-4 skin reactions occurred in 14% of patients, including maculo-papular rash, erythematous rash, rash or drug eruption, symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (SDRIFE), bullous dermatitis, exfoliative dermatitis, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia. The median time to onset of severe skin reactions was 0.6 months (range: 0.1 to 8 months). Among patients experiencing a skin reaction leading to dose interruption who then restarted PADCEV (n=75), 24% of patients restarting at the same dose and 24% of patients restarting at a reduced dose experienced recurrent severe skin reactions. Skin reactions led to discontinuation of PADCEV in 3.1% of patients. Of the patients who experienced a skin reaction and had data regarding resolution (n=328), 58% had complete resolution and 42% had residual skin reactions at their last evaluation. Of the patients with residual skin reactions at last evaluation, 39% (53/137) had Grade ≥2 skin reactions.

    Monitor patients closely throughout treatment for skin reactions. Consider topical corticosteroids and antihistamines, as clinically indicated. For persistent or recurrent Grade 2 skin reactions, consider withholding PADCEV until Grade ≤1. Withhold PADCEV and refer for specialized care for suspected SJS, TEN or for Grade 3 skin reactions. Permanently discontinue PADCEV in patients with confirmed SJS or TEN; or Grade 4 or recurrent Grade 3 skin reactions.

    Hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), including fatal events, occurred in patients with and without pre‑existing diabetes mellitus, treated with PADCEV. Patients with baseline hemoglobin A1C ≥8% were excluded from clinical trials. In clinical trials of PADCEV as a single agent, 17% of the 720 patients treated with PADCEV developed hyperglycemia of any grade; 7% of patients developed Grade 3-4 hyperglycemia (Grade 3: 6.5%, Grade 4: 0.6%). Fatal events of hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in one patient each (0.1%). The incidence of Grade 3-4 hyperglycemia increased consistently in patients with higher body mass index and in patients with higher baseline A1C. The median time to onset of hyperglycemia was 0.5 months (range: 0 to 20 months). Hyperglycemia led to discontinuation of PADCEV in 0.7% of patients. Five percent (5%) of patients required initiation of insulin therapy for treatment of hyperglycemia. Of the patients who initiated insulin therapy for treatment of hyperglycemia, 66% (23/35) discontinued insulin by the time of last evaluation. Closely monitor blood glucose levels in patients with, or at risk for, diabetes mellitus or hyperglycemia. If blood glucose is elevated (>250 mg/dL), withhold PADCEV.

    Pneumonitis/Interstitial lung disease (ILD) Severe, life-threatening or fatal pneumonitis/ILD occurred in patients treated with PADCEV.

    When PADCEV was given in combination with intravenous pembrolizumab for the treatment of MIBC, 4.2% of the 167 patients had pneumonitis/ILD of any grade. All events were Grade 1-2. The median time to onset of any grade pneumonitis/ILD was 2.5 months (range: 1.9 to 9.7 months).

    When PADCEV was given in combination with intravenous pembrolizumab for the treatment of locally advanced or mUC, 10% of the 564 patients had pneumonitis/ILD of any grade and 4% had Grade 3-4. A fatal event of pneumonitis/ILD occurred in two patients (0.4%). The median time to onset of any grade pneumonitis/ILD was 4 months (range: 0.3 to 26 months).

    In clinical trials of PADCEV as a single agent, 3% of the 720 patients treated with PADCEV had pneumonitis/ILD of any grade and 0.8% had Grade 3-4. The median time to onset of any grade pneumonitis/ILD was 2.9 months (range: 0.6 to 6 months).

    Monitor patients for signs and symptoms indicative of pneumonitis/ILD such as hypoxia, cough, dyspnea or interstitial infiltrates on radiologic exams. Evaluate and exclude infectious, neoplastic and other causes for such signs and symptoms through appropriate investigations. Withhold PADCEV for patients who develop Grade 2 pneumonitis/ILD and consider dose reduction. Permanently discontinue PADCEV in all patients with Grade 3 or 4 pneumonitis/ILD.

    Peripheral neuropathy (PN) When PADCEV was given in combination with intravenous pembrolizumab for the treatment of MIBC, 39% of the 167 patients had PN of any grade, 12% had Grade 2 neuropathy, and 3% had Grade 3 neuropathy. The median time to onset of Grade ≥2 PN was 4.7 months (range: 0.2 to 11 months). Of the patients who experienced neuropathy and had data regarding resolution (n=65), 32% had complete resolution, and 68% of patients had residual neuropathy at last evaluation. Of the patients with residual neuropathy at last evaluation, 27% (12/44) had Grade ≥2 neuropathy.

    When PADCEV was given in combination with intravenous pembrolizumab for the treatment of locally advanced or mUC, 67% of the 564 patients had PN of any grade, 36% had Grade 2 neuropathy, and 7% had Grade 3 neuropathy. The median time to onset of Grade ≥2 PN was 6 months (range: 0.3 to 25 months). Of the patients who experienced neuropathy and had data regarding resolution (n= 373), 13% had complete resolution, and 87% of patients had residual neuropathy at last evaluation. Of the patients with residual neuropathy at last evaluation, 45% (146/326) had Grade ≥2 neuropathy.

    PN occurred in 53% of the 720 patients treated with PADCEV as a single agent in clinical trials including 38% with sensory neuropathy, 8% with muscular weakness, and 7% with motor neuropathy. Thirty percent of patients experienced Grade 2 reactions and 5% experienced Grade 3-4 reactions. PN occurred in patients treated with PADCEV with or without preexisting PN. The median time to onset of Grade ≥2 PN was 4.9 months (range: 0.1 to 20 months). Neuropathy led to treatment discontinuation in 6% of patients. Of the patients who experienced neuropathy who had data regarding resolution (n= 296), 11% had complete resolution, and 89% had residual neuropathy at the time of their last evaluation. Of the patients with residual neuropathy at last evaluation, 50% (132/262) had Grade ≥2 neuropathy.

    Monitor patients for symptoms of new or worsening PN and consider dose interruption or dose reduction of PADCEV when PN occurs. Permanently discontinue PADCEV in patients who develop Grade >3 PN.

    Ocular disorders were reported in 40% of the 384 patients treated with PADCEV as a single agent in clinical trials in which ophthalmologic exams were scheduled. The majority of these events involved the cornea and included events associated with dry eye such as keratitis, blurred vision, increased lacrimation, conjunctivitis, limbal stem cell deficiency, and keratopathy. Dry eye symptoms occurred in 30% of patients, and blurred vision occurred in 10% of patients, during treatment with PADCEV. The median time to onset to symptomatic ocular disorder was 1.7 months (range: 0 to 30.6 months). Monitor patients for ocular disorders. Consider artificial tears for prophylaxis of dry eyes and ophthalmologic evaluation if ocular symptoms occur or do not resolve. Consider treatment with ophthalmic topical steroids, if indicated after an ophthalmic exam. Consider dose interruption or dose reduction of PADCEV for symptomatic ocular disorders.

    Infusion site extravasation Skin and soft tissue reactions secondary to extravasation have been observed after administration of PADCEV. Of the 720 patients treated with PADCEV as a single agent in clinical trials, 1% of patients experienced skin and soft tissue reactions, including 0.3% who experienced Grade 3-4 reactions. Reactions may be delayed. Erythema, swelling, increased temperature, and pain worsened until 2-7 days after extravasation and resolved within 1-4 weeks of peak. Two patients (0.3%) developed extravasation reactions with secondary cellulitis, bullae, or exfoliation. Ensure adequate venous access prior to starting PADCEV and monitor for possible extravasation during administration. If extravasation occurs, stop the infusion and monitor for adverse reactions.

    Embryo-fetal toxicity PADCEV can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. Advise patients of the potential risk to the fetus. Advise female patients of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during PADCEV treatment and for 2 months after the last dose. Advise male patients with female partners of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with PADCEV and for 4 months after the last dose.

    ADVERSE REACTIONS

    Most common adverse reactions, including laboratory abnormalities (≥20%):

    • PADCEV in combination with intravenous pembrolizumab for the treatment of MIBC: increased glucose, decreased hemoglobin, increased aspartate aminotransferase (AST), rash, increased alanine aminotransferase (ALT), fatigue, pruritus, increased creatinine, decreased sodium, decreased lymphocytes, peripheral neuropathy, increased potassium, alopecia, dysgeusia, diarrhea, decreased appetite, constipation, nausea, decreased phosphate, urinary tract infection, dry eye, and decreased weight.
    • PADCEV in combination with intravenous pembrolizumab for the treatment of locally advanced or mUC: increased AST, increased creatinine, rash, increased glucose, peripheral neuropathy, increased lipase, decreased lymphocytes, increased ALT, decreased hemoglobin, fatigue, decreased sodium, decreased phosphate, decreased albumin, pruritus, diarrhea, alopecia, decreased weight, decreased appetite, increased urate, decreased neutrophils, decreased potassium, dry eye, nausea, constipation, increased potassium, dysgeusia, urinary tract infection, and decreased platelets.
    • PADCEV as a single agent: increased glucose, increased AST, decreased lymphocytes, increased creatinine, rash, fatigue, peripheral neuropathy, decreased albumin, decreased hemoglobin, alopecia, decreased appetite, decreased neutrophils, decreased sodium, increased ALT, decreased phosphate, diarrhea, nausea, pruritus, increased urate, dry eye, dysgeusia, constipation, increased lipase, decreased weight, decreased platelets, abdominal pain, and dry skin.

    EV-303 Study: Patients with cisplatin-ineligible MIBC (PADCEV in combination with intravenous pembrolizumab)

    • Neoadjuvant phase: Of a total of 167 patients, serious adverse reactions occurred in 27% of patients receiving PADCEV in combination with intravenous pembrolizumab. The most frequent (≥2%) serious adverse reactions were urinary tract infection (3.6%) and hematuria (2.4%). Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 1.2% of patients including myasthenia gravis and toxic epidermal necrolysis (0.6% each). Additional fatal adverse reactions were reported in 2.7% of patients in the post-surgery phase before adjuvant treatment started, including sepsis and intestinal obstruction (1.4% each). Adverse reactions leading to discontinuation of PADCEV occurred in 22% of patients. The most common adverse reactions (≥1%) leading to discontinuation of PADCEV were rash (4.8%), peripheral neuropathy (2.4%), and diarrhea, dysgeusia, fatigue, pruritus, and toxic epidermal necrolysis (1.2% each). Adverse reactions leading to dose interruption of PADCEV occurred in 29% of patients. The most common adverse reactions (≥2%) leading to dose interruption of PADCEV were rash (8%), neutropenia (3.6%), and hyperglycemia (3%), and fatigue and peripheral neuropathy (2.4% each). Adverse reactions leading to dose reduction of PADCEV occurred in 13% of patients. The most common adverse reactions (≥1%) leading to dose reduction of PADCEV were rash (4.8%), pruritus (1.8%), and peripheral neuropathy, increased alanine aminotransferase, increased aspartate aminotransferase, decreased appetite, fatigue, neutropenia, and decreased weight (1.2% each). Seven (4.2%) patients did not receive surgery due to adverse reactions. The adverse reactions that led to cancellation of surgery were acute myocardial infarction, bile duct cancer, colon cancer, respiratory distress, urinary tract infection and deaths due to myasthenia gravis and toxic epidermal necrolysis (0.6% each). Of the 146 patients who received neoadjuvant treatment with PADCEV in combination with intravenous pembrolizumab and underwent RC, 6 (4.1%) patients experienced delay of surgery due to adverse reactions.
    • Adjuvant phase: Of the 149 patients who underwent surgery, 100 patients received adjuvant treatment with PADCEV in combination with intravenous pembrolizumab. Of the 49 patients who did not receive adjuvant treatment, discontinuation of treatment with PADCEV in combination with intravenous pembrolizumab prior to the adjuvant phase was due to an adverse event in 21 patients. Serious adverse reactions occurred in 43% of patients receiving PADCEV in combination with pembrolizumab. The most frequent (≥2%) serious adverse reactions were urinary tract infection (8%), acute kidney injury and pyelonephritis (5% each), urosepsis (4%), and hypokalemia, intestinal obstruction, and sepsis (2% each). Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 7% of patients, including urosepsis, hemorrhage intracranial, death, myocardial infarction, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, and pneumonia pseudomonal (1% each). Adverse reactions leading to discontinuation of PADCEV occurred in 26% of patients. The most common adverse reactions (≥2%) leading to discontinuation of PADCEV were peripheral neuropathy (5%) and rash (4%). Adverse reactions leading to dose interruption of PADCEV occurred in 36% of patients. The most common adverse reactions (≥2%) leading to dose interruption of PADCEV were rash (6%), diarrhea and urinary tract infection (5% each), fatigue (4%), pruritus (3%), and peripheral neuropathy and pyelonephritis (2% each). Adverse reactions leading to dose reduction of PADCEV occurred in 7% of patients. The most common adverse reactions (≥2%) leading to dose reduction of PADCEV was weight decreased (2%).

    EV-302 Study: 440 patients with previously untreated la/mUC (PADCEV in combination with intravenous pembrolizumab) 
    Serious adverse reactions occurred in 50% of patients treated with PADCEV in combination with intravenous pembrolizumab. The most common serious adverse reactions (≥2%) were rash (6%), acute kidney injury (5%), pneumonitis/ILD (4.5%), urinary tract infection (3.6%), diarrhea (3.2%), pneumonia (2.3%), pyrexia (2%), and hyperglycemia (2%). Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 3.9% of patients treated with PADCEV in combination with intravenous pembrolizumab including acute respiratory failure (0.7%), pneumonia (0.5%), and pneumonitis/ILD (0.2%).

    Adverse reactions leading to discontinuation of PADCEV occurred in 35% of patients. The most common adverse reactions (≥2%) leading to discontinuation of PADCEV were PN (15%), rash (4.1%) and pneumonitis/ILD (2.3%). Adverse reactions leading to dose interruption of PADCEV occurred in 73% of patients. The most common adverse reactions (≥2%) leading to dose interruption of PADCEV were PN (22%), rash (16%), COVID-19 (10%), diarrhea (5%), pneumonitis/ILD (4.8%), fatigue (3.9%), hyperglycemia (3.6%), increased ALT (3%) and pruritus (2.5%). Adverse reactions leading to dose reduction of PADCEV occurred in 42% of patients. The most common adverse reactions (≥2%) leading to dose reduction of PADCEV were rash (16%), PN (13%) and fatigue (2.7%).

    EV-301 Study: 296 patients previously treated with a PD-1/L1 inhibitor and platinum-based chemotherapy (PADCEV monotherapy) 
    Serious adverse reactions occurred in 47% of patients treated with PADCEV; the most common (≥2%) were urinary tract infection, acute kidney injury (7% each), and pneumonia (5%). Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 3% of patients, including multiorgan dysfunction (1%), hepatic dysfunction, septic shock, hyperglycemia, pneumonitis/ILD, and pelvic abscess (0.3% each). Adverse reactions leading to discontinuation occurred in 17% of patients; the most common (≥2%) were PN (5%) and rash (4%). Adverse reactions leading to dose interruption occurred in 61% of patients; the most common (≥4%) were PN (23%), rash (11%), and fatigue (9%). Adverse reactions leading to dose reduction occurred in 34% of patients; the most common (≥2%) were PN (10%), rash (8%), decreased appetite, and fatigue (3% each).

    EV-201, Cohort 2 Study: 89 patients previously treated with a PD-1/L1 inhibitor and not eligible for cisplatin-based chemotherapy (PADCEV monotherapy) 
    Serious adverse reactions occurred in 39% of patients treated with PADCEV; the most common (≥3%) were pneumonia, sepsis, and diarrhea (5% each). Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 8% of patients, including acute kidney injury (2.2%), metabolic acidosis, sepsis, multiorgan dysfunction, pneumonia, and pneumonitis/ILD (1.1% each). Adverse reactions leading to discontinuation occurred in 20% of patients; the most common (≥2%) was PN (7%). Adverse reactions leading to dose interruption occurred in 60% of patients; the most common (≥3%) were PN (19%), rash (9%), fatigue (8%), diarrhea (5%), increased AST, and hyperglycemia (3% each). Adverse reactions leading to dose reduction occurred in 49% of patients; the most common (≥3%) were PN (19%), rash (11%), and fatigue (7%).

    DRUG INTERACTIONS

    Effects of other drugs on PADCEV (Dual P-gp and Strong CYP3A4 Inhibitors) 
    Concomitant use with dual P-gp and strong CYP3A4 inhibitors may increase unconjugated monomethyl auristatin E exposure, which may increase the incidence or severity of PADCEV toxicities. Closely monitor patients for signs of toxicity when PADCEV is given concomitantly with dual P-gp and strong CYP3A4 inhibitors.

    SPECIFIC POPULATIONS

    Lactation Advise lactating women not to breastfeed during treatment with PADCEV and for 3 weeks after the last dose.

    Hepatic impairment Avoid the use of PADCEV in patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment.

    Please see full Prescribing Information, including BOXED WARNING.

    About Pfizer Oncology 
    At Pfizer Oncology, we are at the forefront of a new era in cancer care. Our industry-leading portfolio and extensive pipeline includes three core mechanisms of action to attack cancer from multiple angles, including small molecules, antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), and multispecific antibodies, including other immune-oncology biologics. We are focused on delivering transformative therapies in some of the world’s most common cancers, including breast cancer, genitourinary cancer, hematology-oncology, and thoracic cancers, which includes lung cancer. Driven by science, we are committed to accelerating breakthroughs to help people with cancer live better and longer lives.

    About Astellas 
    Astellas is a global life sciences company committed to turning innovative science into VALUE for patients. We provide transformative therapies in disease areas that include oncology, ophthalmology, urology, immunology and women’s health. Through our research and development programs, we are pioneering new healthcare solutions for diseases with high unmet medical need. Learn more at www.astellas.com.

    About the Pfizer, Astellas and Merck Collaboration 
    Seagen and Astellas previously entered a clinical collaboration agreement with Merck to evaluate the combination of Seagen’s and Astellas’ PADCEV® (enfortumab vedotin) and Merck’s Keytruda® (pembrolizumab) in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) who are not eligible for or declined cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Pfizer Inc. successfully completed its acquisition of Seagen on December 14, 2023. Keytruda is a registered trademark of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (known as MSD outside of the United States and Canada).

    Astellas Cautionary Notes 
    In this press release, statements made with respect to current plans, estimates, strategies and beliefs and other statements that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements about the future performance of Astellas. These statements are based on management’s current assumptions and beliefs in light of the information currently available to it and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties. A number of factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements. Such factors include, but are not limited to: (i) changes in general economic conditions and in laws and regulations, relating to pharmaceutical markets, (ii) currency exchange rate fluctuations, (iii) delays in new product launches, (iv) the inability of Astellas to market existing and new products effectively, (v) the inability of Astellas to continue to effectively research and develop products accepted by customers in highly competitive markets, and (vi) infringements of Astellas’ intellectual property rights by third parties. Information about pharmaceutical products (including products currently in development) which is included in this press release is not intended to constitute an advertisement or medical advice.

    Pfizer Disclosure Notice 
    The information contained in this release is as of November 21, 2025. Pfizer assumes no obligation to update forward-looking statements contained in this release as the result of new information or future events or developments.

    This release contains forward-looking information about Pfizer Oncology and PADCEV® (enfortumab vedotin-ejfv) in combination with pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab andberahyaluronidase alfa-pmph in cisplatin-ineligible patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer, including their potential benefits and an approval in the U.S. for the combination as a neoadjuvant treatment and then continued after cystectomy as adjuvant treatment for adult patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer who are ineligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy that involves substantial risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such statements. Risk and uncertainties include, among other things, uncertainties regarding the commercial success of PADCEV; the uncertainties inherent in research and development, including the ability to meet anticipated clinical endpoints, commencement and/or completion dates for our clinical trials, regulatory submission dates, regulatory approval dates and/or launch dates, as well as the possibility of unfavorable new clinical data and further analyses of existing clinical data; risks associated with interim data; the risk that clinical trial data are subject to differing interpretations and assessments by regulatory authorities; whether regulatory authorities will be satisfied with the design of and results from our clinical studies; whether and when any applications may be filed with regulatory authorities in particular jurisdictions for any potential indication for PADCEV with pembrolizumab or as a single agent; whether and when any applications that may be pending or filed for PADCEV with pembrolizumab or as a single agent may be approved by regulatory authorities, which will depend on myriad factors, including making a determination as to whether the product’s benefits outweigh its known risks and determination of the product’s efficacy and, if approved, whether PADCEV with pembrolizumab or as a single agent will be commercially successful; decisions by regulatory authorities impacting labeling, manufacturing processes, safety and/or other matters that could affect the availability or commercial potential of PADCEV with pembrolizumab or as a single agent; whether the collaboration between Pfizer, Astellas and Merck will be successful; risks and uncertainties related to issued or future executive orders or other new, or changes in, laws or regulations; uncertainties regarding the impact of COVID-19 on Pfizer’s business, operations and financial results; and competitive developments.

    A further description of risks and uncertainties can be found in Pfizer’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, and in its subsequent reports on Form 10-Q, including in the sections thereof captioned “Risk Factors” and “Forward-Looking Information and Factors That May Affect Future Results”, as well as in its subsequent reports on Form 8-K, all of which are filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and available at www.sec.gov and www.pfizer.com.

    ________________________
       

    i PADCEV [package insert]. Northbrook, IL: Astellas Pharma US, Inc.

    ii Vulsteke C., et al. Perioperative enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab in participants with muscle-invasive bladder cancer who are cisplatin-ineligible: phase 3 KEYNOTE-905 study. ESMO Congress 2025, Berlin, Germany; 17-21 Oct2025. Abstract LBA2.

    iii National Institute of Health. National Library of Medicine. Perioperative Pembrolizumab (MK-3475) Plus Cystectomy or Perioperative Pembrolizumab Plus Enfortumab Vedotin Plus Cystectomy Versus Cystectomy Alone in Participants Who Are Cisplatin-ineligible or Decline Cisplatin With Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer (MK-3475-905/ KEYNOTE-905/ EV-303. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03924895. Published July 24, 2019. Updated June 17, 2025. Accessed November 14, 2025. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03924895?term=AREA%5BBasicSearch%5D(myosarcoma)&rank=3

    iv World Bladder Cancer Patient Coalition. GLOBOCAN 2022: Bladder cancer 9th most common worldwide. Accessed November 14, 2025. Available at: https://worldbladdercancer.org/news_events/globocan-2022-bladder-cancer-is-the-9th-most-commonly-diagnosed-worldwide/

    v American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2025. Accessed November 14, 2025. Available at: https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics/all-cancer-facts-figures/2025-cancer-facts-figures.html

    vi Bladder Cancer Awareness Network. What is Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer? Accessed November 14, 2025. Available at: https://bcan.org/what-is-muscle-invasive-bladder-cancer/#:~:text=When%20tumors%20grow%20into%20or,Virginia%20Health%20System%20explain%20MIBC

    vii Funt SA, Rosenberg JE. Systemic, perioperative management of muscle-invasive bladder cancer and future horizons. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017 Apr;14(4):221-234. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.188. Epub 2016 Nov 22. PMID: 27874062; PMCID: PMC6054138.

    viii Esteban-Villarrubia J, Torres-Jiménez J, Bueno-Bravo C, García-Mondaray R, Subiela JD, Gajate P. Current and Future Landscape of Perioperative Treatment for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2023 Jan 17;15(3):566. doi: 10.3390/cancers15030566. PMID: 36765525; PMCID: PMC9913718.

    ixChallita-Eid PM, Satpayev D, Yang P, et al. Enfortumab vedotin antibody-drug conjugate targeting nectin-4 is a highly potent therapeutic agent in multiple preclinical cancer models. Cancer Res 2016;76(10):3003-13.

     

    Source: Pfizer Inc.

    Continue Reading