[Edaily Reporter KIM SAE-MI ] On the 2nd, in the biotech sector, additional detailed data from the Phase 2a clinical trial of AprilBio Co.,Ltd.(397030)’s atopic dermatitis treatment “APB-R3” was released, but the stock price plummeted by 20%. Meanwhile, Peptron, Inc.(087010)is drawing attention as its stock price volatility has increased ahead of the July 7 expiration of its joint research agreement, and the company has issued FAQs for two consecutive days to dispel expectations of a definitive agreement with Lilly.

Efficacy Confirmed, but Market Expectations Not Met… Evomune and April Bio See Sharp Stock Price Drops

According to KG Zeroin MP Doctor (MP DOCTOR) on that day, AprilBio Co.,Ltd. closed at 17,020 won, a sharp drop of 4,280 won (20.09%) from the previous trading day. The stock price fell despite news that the efficacy of “APB-R3”—which was licensed to a U.S. partner—had been reconfirmed by detailed Phase 2a clinical trial data and that the company would proceed to subsequent clinical trials.

AprilBio Co.,Ltd.’s U.S. partner, Evomune, released detailed Phase 2a clinical trial data for “EVO301” (APB-R3), a treatment for atopic dermatitis, on the 1st (local time). The company announced that the data confirmed the drug’s efficacy and long-term durability, and that it plans to proceed to subsequent clinical trials in the middle of next year.

The significance of these data lies in the confirmation of statistically significant efficacy and long-term durability even with a limited number of doses. Although EVO301 was administered only twice—at Week 0 and Week 4—the average EASI improvement rate at Week 12 was 55%, outperforming the placebo group (22%), and the degree of improvement continued to increase up to 8 weeks after the final dose. No treatment-related severe or serious adverse events were observed.

Based on these results, Evomune has determined that EVO301 has successfully demonstrated proof of concept (PoC) and plans to proceed with a Phase 2b clinical trial involving repeated subcutaneous (SC) injections and dose optimization. From AprilBio Co.,Ltd.’s perspective, this also signifies that—following the suspension of APB-A1’s development for thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy (TED)—another candidate drug utilizing the SAFA platform has demonstrated efficacy in human clinical trials.

Despite this news, Evomune’s stock price closed at $8.26 (approximately 11,150 won) on that day, plummeting by $1.05 (-12.71%) from the previous day. Trading volume also reached approximately 1.53 million shares, more than double the previous day’s volume (720,000 shares). Evomune’s market capitalization stands at $262 million (approximately 353.7 billion won).

This is interpreted as the stock price reflecting disappointment that the detailed data fell short of market expectations. In particular, analysts note that the absolute response rate of 29% reported for EASI-75 in this announcement failed to meet investors’ expectations. Evomune explained that these results were from only two doses and are comparable to the initial dose results of marketed biologics.

On the same day in South Korea, AprilBio Co.,Ltd.’s stock price also fell by more than 20% compared to the previous day, causing its market capitalization to shrink to 469.1 billion won. In response, AprilBio Co.,Ltd. stated, “It appears our stock price is falling excessively today,” adding, “Considering the nature of the U.S. market—where a clinical trial failure typically results in a drop of more than 50%—it seems investors interpreted yesterday’s decline in Evomune’s stock price not as a sign of poor clinical results, but rather as an indication that the drug was not significantly superior to competing drugs.”

They went on to emphasize, “Even though dosing was conservative in the Phase 2a trial, the drug demonstrated efficacy similar to that of major competitors such as Dupixent,” adding, “Starting with the Phase 2b trial, we plan to modify the clinical trial design to achieve better efficacy results.” AprilBio Co.,Ltd. highlighted that the placebo-adjusted EASI improvement for EVO301 was 33 percentage points (p), which is similar to the Dupixent clinical trials (34.7%p, 36.2%p). The actual calculated figures are indeed similar.

On the other hand, while the EASI-75 achievement rate—which indicates a strong response in individual patients—was 29% for EVO301, only 20 percentage points higher than the placebo group (9%), Dupixent achieved rates of 51% and 44% in SOLO 1 and 2, respectively, which were 36 percentage points and 32 percentage points higher than the placebo groups (15% and 12%). However, it is important to note that the clinical designs and patient populations differ: EVO301 was a Phase 2a trial involving two doses over 12 weeks, whereas Dupixent was a Phase 3 trial involving repeated dosing over 16 weeks.

Peptron

, Inc.

Cuts Back on “Lilly Expectations” Ahead of the 7th On that day, Peptron

, Inc.’s stock price closed at 129,500 won, down 13,000 won (9.12%) from the previous day. The stock, which had rebounded the previous day with a gain in the 7% range, gave up all its gains in just one day. Recently, Peptron, Inc.’s stock price has shown significant volatility amid mixed expectations and concerns regarding the future of its joint research with Eli Lilly.

The market has been watching October 7 as a key date to gauge the likelihood of a follow-up technology transfer between Peptron, Inc. and Lilly. Previously, on October 7, 2024, the two companies signed a platform technology evaluation agreement to apply Peptron, Inc.’s long-acting drug delivery technology, “SmartDepot,” to Lilly’s peptide drugs.

The agreement was entered into for the purpose of conducting Lilly’s internal R&D and technology evaluation, as well as reviewing the potential for a future commercial licensing agreement with Peptron, Inc. Subsequently, as the technology evaluation period was announced to be “up to 24 months,” expectations formed in the market that the possibility of a follow-up agreement might become clearer around the 7th—marking the two-year anniversary of the contract’s signing.

Amid this situation, Peptron, Inc. has recently sought to dispel various market expectations that had been linked to its partnership with Lilly. On the 12th of last month, Peptron, Inc. stated, “October 7 marks the end of the basic term of the current joint research agreement and does not signify the deadline for signing a follow-up commercial agreement.” Furthermore, by releasing FAQs for shareholders on two consecutive days—the 30th of last month and the 1st of this month—an unusual move, the company appears to be focusing on tempering market expectations centered on October 7.

In the FAQ released on the 30th of last month, Peptron, Inc. reaffirmed that the joint research with Lilly is currently underway, while emphasizing that “24 months is the maximum evaluation period.” The company explained that the 7th is not a definitive deadline for deciding whether to sign a follow-up commercial agreement, and that the partnership will not automatically terminate even if the main agreement is not signed by that date.

The following day, the company also drew a clear line regarding specific issues that the market had been interpreting in connection with Lilly. Peptron, Inc. emphasized that “PT403” and “PT404” are SmartDepo-based pipeline candidates developed independently by the company. Regarding the domestic patent for the long-acting GLP-1 formulation recently granted, the company stated that it was based on technology exclusively filed by Peptron, Inc., adding, “It is not a new result generated through joint research with Lilly.” In other words, the recent patent is not evidence of progress in negotiations with Lilly.

Peptron, Inc. also clarified that its decision not to disclose specific details regarding the progress of joint research and business development is not solely due to confidentiality obligations. The company explained that it must comprehensively consider the other party’s evaluations and decision-making processes, as well as the details of negotiations that have not yet been finalized.

Regarding the Osong Plant No. 2, the company reiterated that its construction is not premised on a technology transfer or commercial production volume agreement with any specific global pharmaceutical company. The market had previously interpreted the plant expansion as a signal supporting the possibility of a follow-up contract with Lilly.

A biotech industry insider pointed out, “I wonder why they are repeating explanations they’ve already made, especially now, to distance themselves from any connection with Lilly.” The source continued, “Under typical technology transfer agreements, the upfront payment is secured even if the pipeline is later returned, but Peptron, Inc. is still in the technology evaluation phase,” adding, “If the evaluation drags on for a long time without progressing to a subsequent commercial agreement, Peptron, Inc. could end up having invested a significant amount of time without receiving any upfront payment.”