Less than a month af­ter achiev­ing break­through ther­a­py des­ig­na­tion in melanoma, IO Biotech has se­cured an over­sub­scribed Se­ries B that will help them get their im­mune-mod­u­lat­ing IDO and PD-L1 can­cer vac­cines through a late-stage tri­al.

The Copen­hagen-based com­pa­ny net­ted €127 mil­lion ($154.5 mil­lion) in the round, it re­vealed Wednes­day morn­ing, rais­ing the stakes for its T cell ac­ti­vat­ing ther­a­pies. It’s the biggest fundraise for the biotech since its found­ing in con­junc­tion with No­vo Seeds in 2014, when it pulled in an amount more than 11 times high­er than its Se­ries A about four years ago.

No­vo Seeds man­ag­ing part­ner Søren Møller ac­knowl­edged the com­pa­ny’s quick rise, not­ing an “in­flec­tion point” af­ter IO launched a Phase II study in non-small cell lung can­cer in May 2019 and last month’s BTD. Møller does not sit on IO’s board.

In un­re­sectable or metasta­t­ic melanoma, where IO re­ceived the BTD, the biotech com­bines two of its pro­grams along with Mer­ck’s Op­di­vo. IO’s can­di­dates, IO102 and IO103, work to di­rect T cells against IDO and PD-L1, re­spec­tive­ly, and are spe­cif­ic to­ward their tar­gets.

IDO and PD-1 com­bi­na­tion ap­proach­es have proved a trou­bling ground in the past, as In­cyte’s ef­fort to match its epaca­do­stat can­di­date with Keytru­da in melanoma fell flat in April 2018. A few weeks lat­er, NewLink Ge­net­ics scrapped a Phase III tri­al for its own IDO pro­gram and end­ed up re­verse-merg­ing with Lu­mos in Oc­to­ber 2019 af­ter shares cratered to $1.59 af­ter hov­er­ing over $50.

But IO Biotech is tak­ing a slight­ly dif­fer­ent ap­proach, de­riv­ing pep­tides from IDO and PD-L1 in their ex­per­i­men­tal drugs. Møller notes the ul­ti­mate goal is to ac­ti­vate the body’s im­mune re­sponse in­to elim­i­nat­ing the tu­mor mi­croen­vi­ron­ments.

The da­ta that trig­gered De­cem­ber’s BTD in melanoma came last Sep­tem­ber and en­gi­neered much of the ex­cite­ment sur­round­ing Wednes­day’s raise. In an open-la­bel Phase II tri­al with 30 pa­tients, IO’s com­bo of IO102, IO103 and Op­di­vo showed an over­all re­sponse rate of 79% with 45% of pa­tients achiev­ing a com­plete re­sponse in the first-line set­ting. IO has yet to reach an over­all sur­vival point for the study, Møller said.

Pa­tients were treat­ed with Op­di­vo every oth­er week for as long as there was a clin­i­cal ben­e­fit or no side ef­fects. IO102 and IO103 were giv­en from the start of Op­di­vo ad­min­is­tra­tion and every oth­er week for the first six treat­ments. Af­ter that, the vac­cines were giv­en every fourth week up for up to a year.

With the da­ta, BTD and fund­ing now in hand, the next step is launch­ing the Phase III tri­al in melanoma. Møller ex­pects that to be­gin lat­er this year or in ear­ly 2022, with da­ta read­outs com­ing rough­ly two-and-a-half to three years af­ter­ward. IO’s NSCLC pro­gram, which com­bines IO102 with Keytru­da, should have da­ta some­time in the first half of this year.

Wednes­day’s round was led by HBM Health­care In­vest­ments, and oth­er new in­vestors join­ing the round in­clud­ed Vi­vo Cap­i­tal, Kur­ma Part­ners, Avoro Cap­i­tal, RA Cap­i­tal Man­age­ment, Sam­sara Bio­cap­i­tal, Id­in­vest Part­ners, PFM Health Sci­ences, Soleus Cap­i­tal, Eir Ven­tures and Ser­ra­do Cap­i­tal. In ad­di­tion to No­vo Seeds, ex­ist­ing in­vestors Lund­beck­fonden Emerge and Sun­stone Life Sci­ence Ven­tures al­so par­tic­i­pat­ed.

The co-owner of a Florida-based clinical research site pleaded guilty to lying to an FDA investigator during a 2017 inspection, revealing that she falsely portrayed part of a GlaxoSmithKline pediatric asthma study as legitimate, when in fact she knew that certain data had been falsified, the Department of Justice said Wednesday.

Three other employees — Yvelice Villaman Bencosme, Lisett Raventos and Maytee Lledo — previously pleaded guilty and were sentenced in connection with falsifying data associated with the trial at the CRO Unlimited Medical Research.

New research shows how generic drug companies can successfully market a limited number of approved indications for a brand name drug, prior to coming to market for all of the indications. But several recent court decisions have created a layer of uncertainty around these so-called “skinny” labels.

While courts have generally allowed generic manufacturers to use their statutorily permitted skinny-label approvals, last summer, a federal circuit court found that Teva Pharmaceuticals was liable for inducing prescribers and patients to infringe GlaxoSmithKline’s patents through advertising and marketing practices that suggested Teva’s generic, with its skinny label, could be employed for the patented uses.