Biopharma Adopting AI Despite Remaining GMP Compliance Questions

The biopharma industry is embracing artificial intelligence (AI) in manufacturing, even though questions remain about how best to use the technology in a GMP environment.

At least, so says Sanjay Konagurthu, PhD, senior director, science and innovation, pharma services, at Thermo Fisher Scientific, who argues that the key to successful AI adoption is a clear use case.

“As is true in most industries, adoption of AI and machine learning (ML) is real and accelerating across the biopharma industry. However, most use cases center around applications that augment teams without completely redefining a validated process, such as smarter quality and inspection workflows.

“We’re seeing that the hesitation isn’t so much reluctance to adopt AI as it is the practical constraints of operating in a good manufacturing practices-regulated environment. To adopt AI and ML in regulated environments, you need clear intended use, strong data foundations, traceable governance, and set parameters for disciplined control and monitoring,” he tells GEN.

Data foundations

In addition to establishing a strong use case, drug companies need an IT infrastructure that facilitates the flow of process data, according to Konagurthu, who says data silos are a persistent problem in biopharma.

“As with most scientific endeavors, vast quantities of data are generated across the biopharma industry, among labs, organizations, consortia, and nations, and much of this data is stored in a singular system. So, there’s a connectivity challenge, but that’s not the only reason why processing technologies struggle to exchange information.

“The data is often captured according to different standards and exists in a variety of formats, which means context is easily lost. Also, the data exists in a wide variety of structured and unstructured formats, which compounds the challenge in effective curation and analysis,” he says.

Failure to establish an effective infrastructure or standardize data has multiple negative consequences, Konagurthu adds.

“When data from early development can’t be connected through to commercialization, teams end up re-running experiments and analysis. They may even miss early signals that could impact downstream manufacturing or risk quality.

“When companies look to scale or implement new technologies like AI and ML, fragmented data can become prohibitive. Ultimately, for biopharma, this could extend the time it takes to bring a promising molecule to market,” he says.

Formul-AI-tion development

Beyond process development and control, formulation is another area where more and more biopharmaceutical companies are making a use case for AI.

Konagurthu says, “Biopharma scientists have historically used trial-and-error approaches to determine the right solubility and bioavailability of OSD [oral solid dose] therapies. With AI and ML models, teams can make earlier, better-informed decisions on formulation pathways.

“Early-stage acceleration in discovery and formulation echoes all the way into manufacturing and clinical supply, so improving the front end can compress timelines across the entire pipeline,” he adds.

The post Biopharma Adopting AI Despite Remaining GMP Compliance Questions appeared first on GEN – Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News.

STAT+: Pharmalittle: We’re reading about FDA seeking more data on a Lilly obesity pill, a pharma 340B win, and more

Top of the morning to you. The middle of the week is upon us and, since you made it this far, why not forge ahead? After all, there is always light at the end of the proverbial tunnel. You never know what you may accomplish. So please join us as we celebrate this notion with a cup or three of delicious stimulation. Our choice today is chocolate raspberry. Meanwhile, we have assembled the latest menu of tidbits to help you along. So please dig in. Have a smashing day, and please feel free to forward any secrets you come across. Our “in basket” is always open. …

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration asked Eli Lilly for more data on liver injury linked to its newly approved ​obesity pill, Reuters says, citing a letter posted on the agency website. The April 1 letter also said Lilly must conduct post-marketing trials to assess risks related to cardiovascular events and delayed gastric emptying. The drugmaker is required to also conduct a milk-only lactation study in ​lactating women who have received a dose of the pill to assess concentrations of the drug ​in breast milk using a validated assay. The weight loss pill, ‌branded Foundayo, a once-daily oral medication that targets the GLP-1 hormone, won approval earlier this month under the Commissioner’s National Priority voucher program, which aims to speed FDA decisions on drugs deemed critical to public health or ​national security.

AbbVie, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, the industry trade group, notched a victory after a U.S. appeals court vacated an order rejecting their request to block a Maryland drug discount law, remanding the decision for review, Bloomberg Law reports. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that a lower court erred when it denied a motion filed by the companies and the trade group for a preliminary injunction against a Maryland law. H.B. 1056, currently in effect, requires manufacturers to distribute discounted drugs to an unlimited number of pharmacies that contract with health providers under the 340B Drug Discount Program. They argued the law improperly forces drug companies to supply so-called contract pharmacies as part of the program, and that the law is illegal because it is preempted by federal law and also violates the U.S. Constitution.

Continue to STAT+ to read the full story…

<![CDATA[A pharma expert and clinician shares perspectives on developing treatments.]]>

StockWatch: IPO Market Shows Sign of Life with Avalyn Filing

The initial public offering (IPO) market showed signs of life for the first time in more than a month as Boston-based Avalyn Pharma filed a registration statement on Wednesday seeking to raise capital to develop its pipeline of respiratory disease treatments.

It’s too early to know how much money Avalyn plans to raise—the registration statement includes a placeholder “$100 million” figure that will inevitably be revised, and doesn’t say how many shares will be sold. It’s also too soon to know how much of the proceeds will go toward each of the three pipeline candidates cited in the filing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission:

  • AP01—An inhaled version of pirfenidone, a small molecule modulator of cytokines and growth factors whose development the IPO would advance through Phase IIb topline data and into Phase III. AP01 is under study in the Phase IIb MIST trial (NCT06329401) as a potential treatment for progressive pulmonary fibrosis.
  • AP02—An inhaled version of nintedanib, a small molecule inhibitor of multiple tyrosine kinases, being developed to treat idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Avalyn plans to advance AP02 into the Phase II AURA-IPF trial (NCT07194382) after completing single-ascending dose (SAD) and multiple-ascending dose (MAD) Phase I trials in healthy adult volunteers and IPF patients.
  • AP03—A preclinical inhaled fixed-dose combination of AP01 and AP02 designed to combine what Avalyn says is their ability to substantially reduce or eliminate the adverse effects of oral pirfenidone and oral nintedanib.

Pirfenidone is an IPF drug marketed as Esbriet® by Genentech, a member of the Roche Group, with several other companies selling generic versions. Nintedanib is a kinase inhibitor with indications in treating IPF and chronic fibrosing interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) and slowing the rate of decline in pulmonary function in adults, marketed as Ofev® by Boehringer Ingelheim, with generic versions approved this month.

“The change we aim to make in the treatment paradigm of pulmonary fibrosis and other ILDs parallels the decades-long evolution seen in the treatment of asthma and COPD,” Avalyn stated in its S-1 statement.

In those diseases, the company explained, treatments advanced from broad, systemic oral therapies to targeted inhaled treatments, and ultimately to combination inhalers.

Pulmonary fibrosis “opportunity”

“We see a similar opportunity in pulmonary fibrosis, where the field still relies on oral antifibrotics today. Our programs are designed to drive a similar evolution, first by shifting treatment toward inhaled, lung-targeted formulations of existing antifibrotics that aim to improve safety and efficacy,” Avalyn explained. “We aspire to deliver inhaled therapies that combine complementary mechanisms into a single device for even greater therapeutic impact.”

In discussing the use of its proceeds, Avalyn said it envisioned advancing AP01 and AP02 through Phase IIb and Phase II topline data, respectively, into Phase III trials. AP03 would be advanced into the clinic and Phase I topline data using capital from the IPO.

Whatever isn’t spent on the pipeline candidates will be set aside for R&D activities for additional programs, working capital, and general corporate purposes, Avalyn added.

Avalyn is the first biotech IPO filing since Generate: Biomedicines completed the year’s largest to date, raising $400 million in gross proceeds toward clinical trials, as well as platform and pipeline R&D efforts. To date, seven companies have completed biotech IPOs, raising just over $1.7 billion in combined proceeds, Jefferies analyst Andrew Tsai wrote in a research note.

“The IPO market has been more of a laggard but showed signs of strength this quarter, with Q1 offerings the largest in the past four years,” Tsai wrote. As a result, he added, the IPO market is on pace to exceed historical levels except for the 2020–2021 IPO boom due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mixed on IPO improvement

Heading into 2026, analysts were mixed on whether this year would see improvement in the IPO market compared to 2025, when 11 U.S. companies raised a total of $3 billion on Wall Street. “We think it will be slightly better, but we have not seen enough to suggest that it’s truly rebounding,” Subin Baral, EY global life sciences deals leader, told GEN.

However, Michael Allwin, head of biopharma investment banking, Truist Securities, told GEN that IPOs are typically “the last shoe to drop” after other non-IPO financings show signs of recovery, giving him hope and optimism that 2026 would see a much more active IPO market than 2025: “While we’re not anticipating a resurgence in activity to the tune of what we saw at all-time highs in 2020 and 2021, we are anticipating a more normalized level of activity, maybe on parity with 2019.”

As for Avalyn, should its planned IPO raise the placeholder $100 million amount, it would nearly double the $138.359 million in cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities with which Avalyn finished 2025.

Avalyn ended last year with no revenue and a net loss of $85.204 million, a 71% increase over the $49.744 million net loss the company reported for 2024. As a result, Avalyn’s accumulated deficit rose from $180.2 million at the end of 2024 to $265.4 million on December 31, 2025.

The IPO comes nine months after Avalyn completed its last financing, an oversubscribed $100 million Series D round completed in July and led by investment firms Suvretta Capital Management and SR One.

Survetta and SR One are two of 18 firms that have invested in Avalyn. The 18 include Novo Holdings, the asset manager of the foundation that controls Novo Nordisk.

Novavax rises on shareholders’ opposition

Novavax (NASDAQ: NVAX) enjoyed a small but noticeable surge in its stock price this past week after its second-largest shareholder ramped up its opposition to the vaccine developer’s leadership on several fronts.

Shah Capital Opportunity Fund, which holds an approximately 9% stake in Novavax, said it will oppose the company’s nominees for re-election to the board of directors when Novavax holds its annual shareholder meeting, scheduled for June (no date had been announced at deadline).

In an open letter to Novavax’s board, Raleigh, NC-based Shah Capital also requested that Novavax:

  • Shrink the board from eight to five members and elect new members “with emphasis on pragmatic entrepreneurial experience to turn Novavax into an equity success story.”
  • Buy back 10 to 20 million shares.
  • Retire its outstanding $225 million convertible bond with cash on hand “at the earliest.” Novavax reported $244.213 million in convertible notes payable and $240.634 million in cash and cash equivalents as of December 31, 2025.
  • Persuade a strategic long-term investor to take a 10–20% ownership stake “to reshape Novavax entirely.”

Shah Capital cited a 27% drop in Novavax’s share price from $11 on January 1, 2023, when John C. Jacobs took over as president and CEO, to $8 on March 31, 2026. The fund also expressed frustration that the COVID-19/influenza combination vaccine Novavax is developing with Sanofi (Euronext Paris: SAN)—a potential $5+ billion category, according to Shah Capital—hasn’t yet begun Phase III trials. Sanofi shared positive Phase I/II data in December and told Novavax it is working with regulators on next steps.

“Management has failed to implement aggressive cost-cutting measures necessary to achieve consistent profitability,” Himanshu H. Shah, the fund’s managing partner and chief investment officer, advocated in an open letter to Novavax’s board. “The current senior management team should be reduced by 30% to reflect Novavax’s new royalty and partnership business model.”

“The board size should also be reduced to five from eight, including electing new members with emphasis on pragmatic entrepreneurial experience to turn Novavax into an equity success story,” Shah added.

At odds for months

Shah has been at odds with Jacobs and Novavax leadership for months, having called for a sale of the company last October. Shah has held off pursuing a proxy campaign since the board’s majority has favored current management.

Novavax is based in Gaithersburg, MD, and reported approximately 749 employees as of December 31, 2025, down 21% from 952 a year earlier, according to Form 10-K annual reports.

Novavax investors responded to the Shah Capital letter with a buying spurt that sent shares climbing 5.5% Wednesday, from $7.98 to $8.42 after rising to $8.60 during intraday trading. The momentum continued somewhat on Thursday as shares rose another 1.4%, to $8.54, though Novavax slumped 5% Friday to finish the week at $8.12.

Shah Capital’s letter also sparked a statement to GEN and other news outlets from Novavax, which asserted that its board and management team “are committed to progressing our growth strategy, which is designed to leverage partnerships and R&D innovation to maximize the value of our technology.”

The statement cited recent Novavax efforts that include its up-to-$530 million (plus royalties) partnership with Pfizer (NYSE: PFE), which entered into a non-exclusive license agreement with Pfizer for use of Novavax’s Matrix-M® adjuvant; additional and expanded material transfer agreements with pharmaceuticals; and what the company called “continued progress” on its partnership with Sanofi, from which Novavax generated $225 million in milestone payments last year.

“In addition, we continue to make targeted investments in R&D with the intention of driving further value from our technology, while continuing to significantly reduce costs in our lean and efficient operating model,” Novavax continued. “We maintain constructive dialogue with our shareholders, and we welcome collaborative input that is in the best interest of Novavax and all of its shareholders.”

Shah essentially controls 14,845,097 shares of Novavax stock, including 125,359 shares he owns personally, and 14,719,738 shares owned by Shah Capital and its investment adviser.

Leaders and laggards

  • Invivyd (NASDAQ: IVVD) shares jumped 32% from $1.35 to $1.78 Thursday after the company announced positive progress in its REVOLUTION clinical program for VYD2311, a monoclonal antibody candidate designed to prevent symptomatic COVID-19. As of April 6, when the first 1,500 of 1,818 subjects reached Day 45, clinical events supported statistical powering for the high end of anticipated VYD2311 efficacy levels in the Phase III DECLARATION trial (NCT07298434), with about half of the base study still to be carried out, Invivyd said. DECLARATION will enroll ~500 additional subjects, which, according to the company, will likely, depending on recruitment rates, push back the timing for data release by approximately two months, from mid-year to Q3 2026. Invivyd also announced the discovery and advancement of a “highly potent,” half-life-extended, high-resistance-barrier measles monoclonal antibody candidate, VMS063.
  • Replimune Group (NASDAQ: REPL) shares tumbled 19.5% from $5.91 to $4.76 Friday after the developer of oncolytic immunotherapies disclosed that the FDA for a second time had rejected the company’s biologics license application (BLA) for its lead product candidate RP1 (vusolimogene oderparepvec) in combination with nivolumab to treat advanced melanoma, instead issuing a complete response letter (CRL). Replimune criticized the FDA for an inconsistent review process, saying the agency contradicted earlier guidance to the company and assessed the resubmitted BLA through a different review team that replaced the team that previously interacted with the company. Replimune also defended the combination therapy’s data in the Phase II IGNYTE trial (NCT03767348)—a 34% response rate with a median duration of 24.8 months and a favorable safety profile, the basis of the combo’s breakthrough therapy designation. “We have no choice but to eliminate jobs, including substantially scaling back our U.S.-based manufacturing operations,” stated Replimune CEO Sushil Patel, PhD. Nivolumab is the cancer immunotherapy marketed as Opdivo® by Bristol Myers Squibb (NYSE: BMY).

The post StockWatch: IPO Market Shows Sign of Life with Avalyn Filing appeared first on GEN – Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News.

Drugs from a Text Prompt, Wegovy Pill Competition Dampens Lilly’s Surge

From designing drugs with a simple text prompt to running experiments guided by extended reality, a new wave of agentic AI is transforming the modern lab. Our editors discuss the latest autonomous systems accelerating biological discovery. In business deals, Gilead Sciences has acquired Tubulis in a transaction worth up to $5 billion, strengthening the buyer’s position in antibody–drug conjugates for cancer. Correspondingly, Eli Lilly and Biogen are each making billion-dollar-plus bets, acquiring Centessa, a sleep disorder drug developer, and Apellis, known for its work in immunology and rare diseases. Our episode rounds out by unpacking the dynamic obesity drug market, where intensifying competition from Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy pill is prompting Lilly to temper the 2026 sales outlook for its oral obesity drug, Foundayo.

 

 

Listed below are links to the GEN stories referenced in this episode of Touching Base:

Can AI Agents Automate Scientific Discovery?
By Fay Lin, PhD, GEN Edge, April 1, 2026

Gilead to Acquire Tubulis for Up to $5B, Expanding Cancer ADC Capabilities
By Alex Philippidis, GEN Edge, April 7, 2026

Lilly Acquires Centessa for Up to $7.8B; Biogen Buys Apellis for Up to $6.1B
By Alex Philippidis, GEN Edge, March 31, 2026

StockWatch: Price War Dampens Lilly Surge After Oral GLP-1 Wins FDA Nod
By Alex Philippidis, GEN Edge, April 5, 2026

Touching Base Podcast
Hosted by Corinna Singleman, PhD

Behind the Breakthroughs

Hosted by Jonathan D. Grinstein, PhD

The post Drugs from a Text Prompt, Wegovy Pill Competition Dampens Lilly’s Surge appeared first on GEN – Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News.

STAT+: Pharmalittle: We’re reading about top pharma lobbyist stepping down, genes and GLP-1 drugs, and more

Top of the morning to you, and a fine one it is. Sunny skies and mild breezes are enveloping the Pharmalot campus once again. And to celebrate, we are brewing still more cups of stimulation and inviting you to join us. Our choice today is Jack Daniel’s. Yes, this is a real thing. And remember, a prescription is not required. So no need to mess with rebates, coupons, or TrumpRx. Meanwhile, here are a few items of interest. Hope you have a smashing day and conquer the world. And of course, do stay in touch. We appreciate feedback, criticism and tips. …

Steve Ubl, the chief executive of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of ​America, plans to step down at the end of the ‌year, after more than a decade of leading the main trade group for brand-name drug makers, STAT notes. Ubl led the organization during tumultuous times that included the Covid-19 pandemic and aggressive political attacks on prescription drug pricing. Democrats passed a law directing Medicare to negotiate drug prices and the Trump administration struck  voluntary deals with individual drugmakers aimed at lowering U.S. prices to levels in other high-income countries. The next head of PhRMA will face increasing political pressure on prices and an increasingly populist mood. 

Specific changes in two genes appear to help predict whether patients will lose substantial weight on GLP-1 drugs used to treat obesity — and whether the drugs will cause nausea or vomiting, which are some of their most common side effects, STAT writes, citing a paper in Nature. “I think we have proof of concept here that genetics is playing a role in terms of GLP-1 efficacy and side effects,” said Adam Auton, a vice president at the 23andMe Research Institute and the senior author on the paper. Outside researchers were impressed and intrigued by the findings, but some doubted whether the genetic results would impact patient care. Still, consumers who use what 23andMe calls its Total Health platform will have access to information about these genes and what they predict about GLP-1 use.

Continue to STAT+ to read the full story…

STAT+: Steve Ubl to step down as CEO of PhRMA

WASHINGTON — Steve Ubl is stepping down as CEO of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America after more than a decade leading the brand drug industry’s main trade group.

Ubl plans to depart by the end of the year and will remain in his position until a new leader is found, according to a PhRMA statement.

Ubl led the organization during tumultuous times that included the Covid-19 pandemic and aggressive political attacks on drug prices. Democrats passed a law directing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, and the Trump administration struck voluntary deals with individual drugmakers aimed at lowering U.S. prices to levels in other high-income countries. 

Continue to STAT+ to read the full story…

Faster Process Development via “Transfer Learning”

An emerging artificial intelligence technique called “transfer learning” could help drug makers use data to speed up the development of biopharmaceutical manufacturing processes, according to new analysis.

In transfer learning, predictive models that have been trained on historical data are used to improve the performance of a task.

Unlike machine learning (ML)—where the training process begins from scratch—transfer learning applies existing knowledge to new but related problems, reducing the amount of data and time required to build the model.

Researchers at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany, who looked at the approach, identified several potential biopharma applications, according to lead author Daniel Barón Díaz, citing reactor modeling as an example.

“Transfer learning models can be used to predict critical outcomes like viable cell density (VCD) and product titre from online sensor data—for example, pH, temperature, gas flow—from historical data from a different, but related process.”

The approach can also optimize process monitoring. Díaz tells GEN that, “Transfer learning-enhanced soft sensors can be established to monitor protein concentrations in real-time by leveraging existing models from related fermentations.”

Data limitation

When compared with other model-building techniques, transfer learning offers potential cost and time savings, according to Díaz, who cites a reduced experimentation burden as an example.

“Conventional machine learning requires large, structured datasets that are often unavailable in biopharma due to the high cost and labor-intensive nature of experiments. Transfer learning allows companies to leverage historical data and existing models to build reliable predictors for new processes with very limited data.

“By reusing prior knowledge, transfer learning can significantly decrease the number of experiments required—sometimes needing only one to three batches to achieve robust simulations,” he says.

However, the ultimate benefit is that transfer learning speeds up process model development, according to Díaz, who adds, “It can make model adaptation faster than retraining from scratch, facilitating quicker process design and digital twin deployment.”

Challenges

So, transfer learning has the potential to create predictive models for manufacturing development. However, the key caveat is that the processes involved must be sufficiently similar for it to be effective, Díaz says.

“For transfer learning to be effective, the source and target domains must be meaningfully related. If the processes are too different, the assumptions and learned representations may not align, leading to negative transfer, where the transferred knowledge actually degrades the model’s performance.

“Data sets obtained at different scales or under varying conditions are often inconsistent, which can hinder the successful transfer of knowledge. Fine-tuning complex neural network architectures on very small target datasets can lead to overfitting, where the model fails to generalize to new data,” he says.

To address this, manufacturers will need to establish metrics to determine similarity, Díaz explains.

“There are currently no standardized metrics for measuring domain similarity in bioprocessing, nor are there comprehensive benchmark datasets to easily compare different transfer learning techniques.”

Another challenge is the current lack of AI expertise in the industry, Díaz says.

“There is often a disciplinary knowledge gap between process engineers and data scientists, and ML models without a mechanistic backbone may be perceived as opaque black boxes, hindering trust and industrial adoption,” he tells GEN.

The post Faster Process Development via “Transfer Learning” appeared first on GEN – Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News.

STAT+: FDA backs proposals to entice pharma companies to test, make drugs domestically

WASHINGTON — The Food and Drug Administration used the president’s budget to propose policies aimed at encouraging domestic development and manufacturing of drugs.  

FDA Commissioner Marty Makary has said the agency needs “giant, big ideas” to counter China’s dominance in early-stage clinical development of drugs. Among the FDA’s ideas are proposals to make it easier to run early-stage trials in the U.S. and to hand an advantage to U.S.-based generics manufacturers.

The Trump administration has been using a variety of policy levers to try and bring drug manufacturing to the U.S. For example, many of the brand drugmakers that struck deals to lower U.S. prices also promised to increase domestic manufacturing, under the threat of tariffs.

Continue to STAT+ to read the full story…

STAT+: Pharma companies and patient groups seek to exempt orphan drugs from Colorado pricing limits

For the second time in two years, a bill is moving through the Colorado legislature that would exempt orphan drugs, which are used to treat rare diseases, from pricing caps that might be pursued by the state’s Prescription Drug Affordability Board — a panel whose work is being closely watched elsewhere in the country.

The effort reflects concerns that patients may lose access to these drugs if pharmaceutical companies halt sales of such treatments in the state. But opponents argue exemptions would unnecessarily extend to numerous big-selling medicines for common conditions that — thanks to regulatory endorsements — also happen to have an orphan designation.

As a result, consumer advocates complain the maneuver would only increase the risk that countless patients could have trouble paying for a wide variety of medicines. They further argue that the legislation would preserve profits for drug companies at the expense of the state government — and its taxpayers — as it tries to cope with budgetary strains.

Continue to STAT+ to read the full story…