Category: 3. Business

ISLAMABAD: The Government of Pakistan has announced a major reduction in National Savings Profit Rates, effective from July 28, 2025, having a major effect on millions of investors across the country.

The updated rates apply to an extensive range of saving certificates, which include Behbood, Defence, and Regular Income Certificates, along with Sarwa Islamic products.

In a notification issued by the Ministry of Finance, the revised rates are part of fiscal reform.

The National Savings Profit Rates for Special Savings Certificates have had a reduction of 10.4% per annum for the initial five profits and 11.0% for the sixth.

These profits are paid twice a year and are eligible for standard deductions:

15% – filers
30% – non-filers
2.5% – zakat, wherever applicable.

Defence Savings Certificates now offer an incremental return structure, concluding in 200% over 10 years, opening from 9% in Year 1.

Regular Income Certificates will generate Rs. 890 monthly per Rs. 100,000, generating an annual rate of return of 10.68%.

Rs. 1,080 monthly per Rs. 100,000 will be given at the rate of 12.96% annual return on special schemes such as Behbood Savings Certificates, Pensioners’ Benefit Accounts, and Shuhada Family Welfare Accounts.

These schemes are specially designed for widows, senior citizens, disabled individuals, retired government employees, and families of martyrs.

Adjustments in Short-Term Savings Certificates have also been done as:

• 3-Months: 10.32% per annum.
• 6-Months: 10.20% per annum.
• 1-Year: 10.14% per annum.

There is no change in the general Savings Account rate, which remains stagnant at 9.5% per annum.

Read More: New profit rates on saving accounts, certificates announced

Sarwa Islamic Term Accounts (SITA), which come under the Islamic investment options, now offer:

• 1-Year: 9.94% per annum.
• 3-Year: 10.30% per annum.
• 5-Year: 10.80% per annum.

Sarwa Islamic Saving Account (SISA) proceeds at 9.94% per annum, with monthly returns of Rs. 828 per Rs. 100,000.

The revised National Savings Profit Rates are likely to impact investment decisions, especially among fixed-return investments.

Investors are recommended to seek advice from National Savings Centres or authorised banks for updated terms and conditions.

MINNEAPOLIS — Hackers gained access to personal data on the majority of the 1.4 million customers of Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, the company confirmed Saturday.

Minneapolis-based Allianz Life, a subsidiary of Munich, Germany-based Allianz SE, said the data breach happened on July 16 when a “malicious threat actor” gained access to a third-party, cloud-based system used by the company.

“The threat actor was able to obtain personally identifiable data related to the majority of Allianz Life’s customers, financial professionals, and select Allianz Life employees, using a social engineering technique,” Allianz Life said in a statement. “We took immediate action to contain and mitigate the issue and notified the FBI.”

The company said its own systems were not accessed, just the third-party’s platform.

Allianz Life said its investigation is ongoing and that the company has begun reaching out to the impacted individuals. It said the incident involves only Allianz Life in the U.S., not other Allianz corporate entities.

In the case of data breaches, a “social engineering technique” usually involves using trickery to gain access. Spokesman Brett Weinberg said he couldn’t provide details because they are still investigating.

Allianz Life also reported the breach to multiple other authorities, including the Maine Attorney General’s Office. A filing on the agency’s website said the company discovered the breach the day after it happened, and that it will be offering those affected 24 months of identity theft protection and credit monitoring.

Allianz Life was known as North American Life and Casualty until it was acquired by German conglomerate Allianz SE in 1979 and changed its name to Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America. It has nearly 2,000 employees in U.S., with the majority working in Minnesota, according to its website.

It is one of five North American subsidiaries of the Munich-based global financial services group Allianz SE, which says it serves more than 125 million customers worldwide.

In a new interview with the HCPLive team, conducted at the Dermatology Education Foundation (DERM) 2025 NP/PA CME Conference in Las Vegas, Suneel Chilukuri, MD, spoke about the biggest takeaways from his talk ‘Skincare Secrets and Quick Fixes.’

Chilukuri, who is a board-certified dermatologic surgeon for Refresh Dermatology, highlighted emerging skincare trends and the unregulated use of products like polynucleotides (pN), poly deoxyribonucleotides (pDRN), poly platelet-derived growth factors (PDGF), and exosomes. These substances, which are often injected, were said by Chilukuri to show promise in improving scar texture and collagen production but lack regulatory approval.

“I think that right now we’re in the Wild West, because there’s nothing that’s an actual FDA-cleared type product,” Chilukuri said. “These are cosmetics. We don’t even say cosmeceutical, because that’s a made-up word that we talk about. But they’re cosmetic products, and they’re not approved. They’re actually just ignored. It’s a topical application that goes on. But people are injecting these things. So they’re injecting Pn, pDRN, they’re injecting PDGF, poly platelet-derived growth factors. All these things are not being regulated. They’re injecting exosomes. And my whole takeaway is, number 1, does it work? We see that it works, but you have to at least figure out if that product is actually sterile and allowed to be put on topically immediately post-procedure, so that we can use it.”

Chilukuri highlighted that pilot studies have been demonstrating tremendous changes in the texture of the skin when using such products for scars, whether with an immediate wound or later in the scar journey

“We can decrease contracture,” Chilukuri said. “We can improve the production of type 3 collagen, and also regulate the conversion of type 1 collagen, so instead of looking like little bundles of scar tissue underneath the skin, it looks like a proper collagen formation that we would have as children.”

The conversation also covered the safety and efficacy of skin boosters. The importance of cellular senescence in skin health and the need for reliable guidelines to distinguish between effective and ineffective treatments were emphasized by Chilukuri as well.

To find out more about the topics covered in Chilukuri’s session at the conference, view his full interview segment posted above. For more from DERM 2025, check out our latest conference coverage.

The quotes contained in this interview summary were edited for clarity.

Japan’s $550 billion investment package agreed in this week’s U.S. tariff deal could help finance a Taiwanese firm building semiconductor plants in the U.S., Japan’s top trade negotiator Ryosei Akazawa said on Saturday.
Japan agreed to the sweeping U.S.-bound investment initiative, which includes equity, loans and guarantees, in exchange for lower tariffs on its exports to the U.S.

However, the structure of the scheme remains unclear.

“Japan, the United States, and like-minded countries are working together to build supply chains in sectors critical to economic security,” Akazawa told public broadcaster NHK.

To that end, he said projects eligible for financing under the package are not limited to U.S. or Japanese firms.

“For example, if a Taiwanese chipmaker builds a plant in the U.S. and uses Japanese components or tailors its products to meet Japanese needs, that’s fine too,” he said, without specifying companies.

The U.S. is significantly reliant on Taiwan’s TSMC (2330.TW) for advanced chip manufacturing, raising economic security concerns due to geographic proximity to China.

TSMC announced plans for a $100 billion U.S. investment with U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House in March, on top of $65 billion pledged for three plants in the state of Arizona, one of which is up and running.

Japan will use state-owned Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) and Nippon Export and Investment Insurance (NEXI) for the investments. A recent law revision has enabled JBIC to finance foreign companies deemed critical to Japan’s supply chains.

Akazawa told NHK that equity investment would account for just about 1–2% of the $550 billion, suggesting that the bulk will come in the form of loans and guarantees.

When asked about the White House statement that the U.S. would retain 90% of the profits from the package, he clarified that the figure refers only to returns on equity investment, which would represent a small fraction of the total.

While Japan initially hoped to secure half of the returns, a loss from the concession on the profit-sharing would be marginal compared to the roughly 10 trillion yen ($67.72 billion) in tariff costs that could be avoided under the deal, he said.

He added that Japan aims to deploy the $550 billion investments during Trump’s current term.

According to a new announcement from AB Science, the company has received approval from several European countries to initiate a new phase 3 study to confirm the therapeutic potential of masitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, as a treatment for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The approval follows protocol validation by the European Medicines Agency and the FDA authorization.¹

The latest study, called AB23005, is expected to include 408 patients with ALS, more than double its previously completed phase 2/3 trial, in order to achieve high statistical power. In the study, patients entering with normal disease progression and no total loss of function, will be randomly assigned 1:1 to either masitinib or riluzole, the standard of care for ALS, for a 48-week treatment period.

In this prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-arm trial, normal disease progression is defined as a functional decline on ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R) of less than 1.1 points per month, while total loss of function is considered a score of at least 1 on each of the 12 items of ALSFRS-R. The trial, validated through discussions with European health authorities, will also allow for patients on edaravone to be included. As the study was being built, investigators identified that patients without rapid progression or without complete loss of function would be the most optimal study population who respond best to masitinib.

“Masitinib ALS study AB23005 has great potential because it’s design is based on strong clinical and preclinical data,” principal investigator Albert Ludolph, MD, PhD, chair of the department of neurology at the University of Ulm, said in a statement.¹ “That is to say, results from the first 48-week Phase 2B/3 study, AB10015, which generated a strong hypothesis with significant survival of several months in the patient population being targeted in this confirmatory study, and also numerous preclinical studies that provide compelling insight into masitinib’s mechanism of action in ALS and its effect on biomarkers such as neurofilaments (NfL) by targeting mast cells and microglia.”

Masitinib has been in development for several years and tested in other neurologic conditions like multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer disease. The new study is expected to have more than double the amount of patients than the previously completed phase 2/3 AB1005 study (NCT02588677), which had results published in the journal of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Frontotemporal Degeneration in 2020.²

READ MORE: Eyeing Neurology Drug Development: 2H Trial Readouts to Watch for in 2025

The phase 2/3 trial, dubbed AB10015, comprised 394 patients who were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to either riluzole (100 mg/d) plus placebo or masitinib at 4.5 or 3.0 mg/kg/d. Following a blinded transition from phase 2 to phase 2/3, a prospectively defined two-tiered design was implemented based on ALSFRS-R progression rate from disease-onset to baseline. This approach selected a more homogenous primary efficacy population (“normal progressors”, ΔFS < 1.1 points/month), while concurrently permitting secondary assessment of the broader population.

In AB10015, the primary end point was decline in ALSFRS-R at week 48 (ΔALSFRS-R), with the high-dose “normal progressor” cohort being the prospectively declared primary efficacy population. For this population, masitinib-treated patients (n = 99) showed significant benefit over placebo (n = 102) with a ΔALSFRS-R between-group differs of 3.4 (95% CI, 0.65-6.13; P = .016), corresponding to a 27% slowing rate of functional decline. In addition, there were significant effects on secondary end points of ALSAQ-40, forced vital capacity, and time-to-event analyses.

In contrast to the normal progressor group, there was no treatment-effect seen on ALSFRS-R for the “normal and fast progressor” masitinib 4.5 mg/kg/d cohort (which showed a ΔLSM of 2.09 in favor of masitinib, P = 0.12), or either of the low-dose cohorts. In a subgroup analysis, which tested whether patient response to masitinib was influenced by baseline disease severity, results showed that initiation of masitinib at 4.5 mg/kg/d at a less severe stage of disease produced greater treatment-effect according to ΔALSFRS-R and time-to-event analysis.

In addition to the phase 2/3 trial, there have been several preclinical studies showing that masitinib can significantly reduce macrophage infiltration, prevent loss of terminal Schwann cells, and improve reinnervation of partially denervated plantar muscles. Recent pharmacological data show that mast cells infiltrate the degenerating spinal cord in ALS models and patients, with masitinib demonstrating a protective effect and reducing blood neurofilament light (NfL) levels in an EAE model.

REFERENCES
1. AB Science has received approval from several European countries to initiate the confirmatory phase 3 study of masitinib in ALS. News release. July 24, 2025. Accessed July 24, 2025. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/07/24/3120751/0/en/AB-Science-has-received-approval-from-several-European-countries-to-initiate-the-confirmatory-phase-3-study-of-masitinib-in-ALS.html
2. Mora JS, Genge A, Chio A, et al. Masitinib as an add-on therapy to riluzole in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a randomized clinical trial. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Frontotemporal Degeneration. 2020;21:1-2. doi: 10.1080/21678421.2019.1632346

EE says it carried out further work overnight to fix a technical problem which left some customers unable to make or receive calls.

In the last 24 hours, hundreds of people who use the mobile provider have told the BBC they have experienced service issues.

It comes after thousands were left unable to make or receive calls earlier this week due to a technical issue which impacted both mobile and landline phones.

On Saturday, a spokesperson for BT – which owns EE – said the network was “running as normal” after maintenance was carried out last night, but that it was “monitoring” the situation.

The BBC’s Your Voice, Your News continued to receive messages from readers on Saturday saying that they had experienced issues with their phone service.

One 84-year-old customer said she and her husband were left unable to make “vital” daily calls to their daughter and son-in-law.

“The service is still down, into our third day of no service is unacceptable,” said another customer from Essex, who added that “the lack of information is deafening”.

“This is still an ongoing issue,” reported another customer from Exeter, who said multiple offices of his estate agency business were all experiencing problems making calls.

Earlier this week, EE customers reported that they were unable to make or receive calls, including to 999.

BT apologised for that outage on Thursday and said that it happened “following a technical fault impacting voice services” on their network.

Responding to the latest outage, EE said on Saturday: “We continue to conduct enhanced monitoring to prevent recurrence.

“We sincerely apologise for any inconvenience this issue has caused.”

Story Continues

By Michael Sincere

RIA Advisor’s Lance Roberts says Trump’s trade policies could trigger a correction soon.

‘There’s some good technical fuel for a 5% or 6% correction in late August or early September.’ Lance Roberts

Lance Roberts is a seasoned financial strategist and economist with more than 30 years of experience in investment management, private banking and venture capital. He currently serves as chief investment strategist and chief economist at RIA Advisors, where he leads market research and portfolio strategy.

Roberts is also the editor of the widely followed “Real Investment Report” and host of “The Real Investment Show,” offering daily and weekly commentary on macroeconomic trends, financial markets and investment strategy.

Known for precise, pragmatic market analysis, Roberts provides practical investment guidance using a variety of methods and tools. In this recent interview, which has been edited for length and clarity, Roberts discusses two big risks to the bull market right now, shares tips on managing portfolio risk and singles out several Big Tech and AI stocks he likes and one well-known stock he’s sold.

MarketWatch: What are the most significant risks or red flags you see in the current stock-market environment?

Roberts: The market is bullish, but I’m concerned we’re getting set up for another pullback sometime this year. Many institutions are still underweight equities and are not chasing the rally at this moment. In terms of sentiment, they are not back at the very bullish levels of exuberance.

Retail investors, however, are taking on an enormous level of speculative risk with call option volumes at record levels and inflows into leveraged ETF accelerating. There’s a bit of speculative exuberance. The market is currently approaching a point where an unexpected event could prompt the market to reassess forward earnings and lead to a correction.

MarketWatch: So you are expecting a market correction?

Roberts: The market can rally here for the next month or so on earnings, but Aug. 1 is the deadline on tariffs. If [President Donald] Trump suddenly reimplements 38% tariffs, and if the overbought, extended market deviates from its 200-day moving average, there’s some good technical fuel for a 5% or 6% correction in late August or early September. Based on technical indicators, we should at least retest the 200-day moving average at some point. That would be about 5% or 6% lower than the current level.

MarketWatch: What about the stock market now keeps you up at night?

Roberts: Everything keeps me up at night, but there are two things worth watching right now. I don’t think there are too many risks at the moment, but I believe earnings estimates are way too low going into this quarter. It’s the third- and fourth quarter that keep me up at night because if you take a look at earnings estimates for Q3 and Q4, they rocket to the moon. Investors are expecting 16% growth in the third quarter. I don’t know where they’re expecting this 16% economic surge to support that. There’s a big disconnect between economic activity and the markets right now.

?MarketWatch: Are there any stocks you are avoiding right now?

Roberts: The stocks I’m avoiding right now are the ones primarily subject to tariffs. For instance, I’ve owned Apple (AAPL) for 10 years, but I sold it this year because it’s lagging in the AI development race. Apple also has significant exposure and risk to tariffs because of their exposure to China’s development. We sold Apple and took a position in Meta Platforms (META) due to its growing revenues. Apple is an example of a company that I’m trying to avoid right now.

MarketWatch: What stocks do you see as long-term winners?

Roberts: If you’re investing in AI, I like Palantir Technologies (PLTR), which is extremely overbought right now, so I’d wait for a pullback. You have to own Nvidia (NVDA), but you must wait for a pullback; it’s very extended. Keep in mind that the companies we’ll be talking about 10 years from now won’t be these guys, just like it was during the dot-com boom.

Also keep in mind that we don’t have enough AI factories. The bigger you build that factory, the more money you make. To do that, you need power, and we don’t have enough of it. That is why companies such as Oklo (OKLO) and Cameco Corp. (CCJ) have considerable long-term potential. They’re super overvalued right now because it takes 10 years to build a nuclear power plant.

Risk is not about how much money you make when the market goes up. It’s how much you lose when the market goes down.

MarketWatch: What’s your advice for managing portfolio risk in this kind of market?

Roberts: The first thing not to do is to sell everything, because if you move to cash, the market often keeps rallying. Back in March, we were at all-time highs and everyone was super bullish. We’re now back at those levels. Here is my recommendation: If you owned stocks that have performed exceptionally well, consider taking some profits.

That doesn’t mean to sell everything. However, if your normal position is 4% or 5%, trim it back to 3%. Raise some cash. Do you own a weak stock in a strong market? If that’s the case, then sell your laggards. If it’s a strong company that’s not participating right now because it’s out of favor, consider adding to the position. It’s about looking at your portfolio and rebalancing your risk.

MarketWatch: How should investors think about risk during a bull market?

Roberts: What people don’t realize is they often take on more risk in a bull market than they realize, and that risk shows up when markets decline. Risk is not about how much money you make when the market goes up. It’s how much you lose when the market goes down. Investors need to take an honest assessment of their personality and think: If the markets decline by 10% tomorrow, what would I do? Would you panic and sell everything? If you don’t know that answer, then think about how you felt in April, and you’ll have a better idea of where you are.

MarketWatch: Why hasn’t the market reacted more negatively to the latest round of tariff news?

Roberts: I tell clients not to worry about the headlines so much. Take a step back and consider how the tariff headlines impact earnings for companies such as Nvidia, Microsoft (MSFT) or Apple. If it doesn’t have a major impact on forward earnings, then there’s no need for the market to reassess valuations. So, the market is back to being very exuberant again because investors are betting that the tariffs won’t exceed 10% or 12%.

MarketWatch: What’s your view of how the Federal Reserve is managing the U.S. economy?

Roberts: The Fed, as smart as they are, gets trapped into these mental biases, and they allow that to impact their forward thinking. In my opinion, employment’s OK, but it’s slowing down. We are seeing some weakness in employment, not only in the BLS report, which has weakened, but also in the ISM manufacturing report. The employment indexes are also showing a lot of weakness. I think the Fed should have cut at the last meeting, not aggressively, but 25 basis points, and then see how things are going.

MarketWatch: What risks does Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell face if the central bank waits too long to cut rates? Shouldn’t the Fed be cutting now?

Roberts: Powell is worried that if the Fed cuts rates, it will cause inflation. If something happens, for example, if Trump takes a particularly aggressive stance on tariffs, it could cause the economy to buckle. And all of a sudden, the Fed is having to cut a lot more aggressively, and markets don’t like that. The market is OK with a controlled 25 basis-point cut, but they don’t like aggressive cuts. If the Fed started to cut by 50 basis points, then you know that something broke in the market.

MarketWatch: How could tensions between Trump and the Fed impact the markets?

Roberts: The two risks in the next two months are that Powell is late in cutting rates, and the White House’s battle with him accelerates. My concern is that if Powell quits or is forced out of office, the markets may not like it. The market relies on the Fed’s independence.

Michael Sincere is the author of books including “Understanding Stocks,” “Understanding Options,” and “Help Your Child Build Wealth.”

More: Picking stocks is a losing bet, this market legend says. Here’s his winning strategy.

Plus: This one money move guarantees you inflation-proof income in retirement

-Michael Sincere

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

  07-26-25 1418ET
Copyright (c) 2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Combining belantamab mafodotin-blmf (Blenrep) with dexamethasone and bortezomib (Velcade; BVd) demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvements in outcomes like overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) among patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, according to updated findings from the phase 3 DREAMM-7 trial (NCT04246047) published in Lancet Oncology.¹

The median OS was not reached (NR; 95% CI, NR-NR) with BVd and NR (95% CI, 41.0-NR) with daratumumab (Darzalex) plus bortezomib and dexamethasone (DVd; HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43-0.79; P = .0002). In each respective arm, the 24-month OS rates were 79% (95% CI, 73%-84%) vs 67% (95% CI, 61%-73%), and the 36-month rates were 74% (95% CI, 68%-79%) vs 60% (95% CI, 54%-66%). Across prespecified subgroups, BVd demonstrated OS benefits in patients with prior exposure to lenalidomide (Revlimid), those with lenalidomide-refractory disease, and those with high-risk cytogenetics.

Data showed an objective response rate (ORR) of 83% (95% CI, 77.8%-87.6%) with BVd vs 71% (95% CI, 65.3%-76.8%) with DVd, with 36% (95% CI, 29.8%-42.2%) and 18% (95% CI, 13.0%-22.8%) in each arm achieving a complete response (CR) or better. Minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity occurred in 25% (95% CI, 19.8%-31.0%) and 10% (95% CI, 6.9%-14.8%) of patients with a CR or better, with sustained MRD-negative status for at least 12 months reported in 14% (95% CI, 10.2%-19.5%) and 4% (95% CI, 2.2%-7.7%) of patients with a CR or better. BVd produced a median duration of response (DOR) of 40.8 months (95% CI, 30.5-NR) vs 17.8 months (95% CI, 13.8-23.6) with DVd.

Regarding PFS2, which was defined as the time from randomization to disease progression following the initiation of any subsequent antimyeloma therapy or death from any cause, events occurred in 38% of the BVd arm and 50% of those in the DVd arm. Additionally, the median PFS2 was NR (95% CI, 45.6-NR) and 33.4 months (95% CI, 26.7-44.9) in each arm (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45-0.77).

“DREAMM-7 showed significant and clinically meaningful [OS], [PFS], [MRD] negativity, and [DOR] benefits with BVd compared with DVd. The safety profile of BVd was consistent with that in the primary analysis, with no new safety concerns,” lead study author Vania Hungria, MD, PhD, from the Department of Hematology at Clinica São Germano in São Paulo, Brazil, wrote with coauthors.¹ “To our knowledge, this is the first phase 3, randomised, head-to-head study showing such robust [OS] benefit with a triplet regimen against an established daratumumab-based regimen in patients with [relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma] who have received at least 1 previous line of therapy, further supporting the use of BVd as a potential new standard of care for these patients.”

In the open-label DREAMM-7 trial, 494 patients were randomly assigned to receive BVd (n = 243) or DVd (n = 251). Investigators administered belantamab mafodotin at 2.5 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks and daratumumab at 16 mg/kg intravenously once weekly in cycles 1 to 3, every 3 weeks in cycles 4 to 8, and every 4 weeks thereafter. Additionally, all patients received bortezomib at 1.3 mg/m² subcutaneously twice weekly for 8 cycles plus dexamethasone at 20 mg orally or intravenously on the day of and day after bortezomib.

The trial’s primary end point was PFS. Secondary end points included OS, MRD negativity in patients with a CR or better, DOR, and safety. Patients 18 years and older with a confirmed multiple myeloma diagnosis based on International Myeloma Working Group criteria, at least 1 prior line of treatment, documented disease progression on or after the most recent line of therapy, and an ECOG performance status of 0 to 2 were eligible for enrollment on the trial.

The median age was 64.5 years (IQR, 57.0-71.0) across both treatment groups, and most patients were male (55%) and White (83%). Overall, baseline characteristics were balanced across the BVd and DVd arms. The median follow-up at the time of this analysis was 39.4 months (range, 0.1-52.3).

Investigators noted receipt of any subsequent therapy in 36% of the BVd arm and 52% of the DVd arm. In each respective arm, the most common types of subsequent treatment included steroids (32% vs 43%), dexamethasone (31% vs 42%), and immunomodulators (25% vs 37%).

Any-grade adverse effects (AEs) affected 100% of the BVd and the DVd arms, with grade 3/4 toxicities occurring in 95% vs 78%. In each arm, 32% vs 19% had toxicities leading to treatment discontinuation, 75% vs 59% had AEs resulting in dose reductions, and 95% vs 76% had toxicities associated with dose delays. Investigators reported fatal serious AEs in 11% of the BVd arm and 8% of the DVd arm.

Thrombocytopenia was the most common grade 3/4 toxicity and occurred in 56% of the BVd arm compared with 35% of the DVd arm. The most common ocular toxicities in the BVd arm included dry eyes (53%), photophobia (50%), foreign body sensations in the eyes (46%), and eye irritation (45%).

In July 2025, the FDA’s Oncologic Advisory Drug Committee (ODAC) voted 5-3 against the favorability of BVd as a treatment for patients with multiple myeloma following at least 1 prior line of therapy.²

References

1. Hungria V, Robak P, Hus M, et al. Belantamab mafodotin plus bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (DREAMM-7): updated overall survival analysis from a global, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. Published online July 15, 2025. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(25)00330-4
2. July 17, 2025, Meeting of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC). FDA. Streamed live July 17, 2025. Accessed July 23, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/mhafuuy8