Stock Markets April 6, 2026

Viridian shares slump after Amgen posts strong Phase 3 data for TEPEZZA on-body injector

Amgen's subcutaneous TEPEZZA trial posts robust proptosis response, drawing comparisons with Viridian's elegrobart subcutaneous data

By Priya Menon VRDN AMGN
Viridian shares slump after Amgen posts strong Phase 3 data for TEPEZZA on-body injector
VRDN AMGN

Viridian Therapeutics stock plunged after Amgen reported positive Phase 3 results for TEPEZZA delivered via an on-body injector for moderate-to-severe active Thyroid Eye Disease. The Amgen trial showed higher proptosis response rates versus placebo and numerically stronger outcomes than Viridian's recent subcutaneous data, while safety findings were consistent with the intravenous profile.

Key Points

  • Amgen's TEPEZZA OBI Phase 3 trial met its primary endpoint with a 77% proptosis response versus 19.6% for placebo over 24 weeks.
  • TEPEZZA OBI produced numerically stronger efficacy than Viridian's elegrobart subcutaneous results, with higher absolute and placebo-adjusted proptosis response rates.
  • Dosing logistics differ substantially - elegrobart via autoinjector can be given Q4W or Q8W with as few as 4 injections over 24 weeks, while Amgen's OBI uses a subcutaneous infusion pump every two weeks for a total of 12 injections.

Shares of Viridian Therapeutics Inc (NASDAQ:VRDN) tumbled 25.2% on Monday following an announcement from Amgen (NASDAQ:AMGN) that its TEPEZZA program administered by subcutaneous injection using an on-body injector produced positive Phase 3 results in patients with moderate-to-severe active Thyroid Eye Disease.

Amgen reported that the TEPEZZA OBI trial met its primary endpoint, delivering a 77% proptosis response rate over the 24-week study period compared with 19.6% for placebo. The company also disclosed statistically significant improvements across several secondary endpoints, including overall responder rate and Clinical Activity Score.

When set side by side with Viridian's recent subcutaneous data for elegrobart, the TEPEZZA OBI figures were numerically stronger. Amgen's OBI cohort showed a 76.7% absolute proptosis response rate versus 54% for elegrobart dosed every four weeks and 63% for elegrobart dosed every eight weeks. On a placebo-adjusted basis, TEPEZZA OBI registered a 57% improvement, compared with 36% for elegrobart Q4W and 45% for elegrobart Q8W.

Safety findings for the subcutaneous TEPEZZA formulation were reported as broadly consistent with the established safety profile for TEPEZZA administered intravenously. Some patients receiving subcutaneous injections experienced mild-to-moderate injection site reactions, but these events did not lead to treatment interruption or discontinuation. The most frequently observed adverse events included muscle spasms, tinnitus, weight decrease, ear discomfort, nausea and diarrhea.

Analysts and market observers noted a tradeoff between the efficacy signals in the TEPEZZA OBI data and the dosing convenience of Viridian's elegrobart. Elegrobart is designed for administration via autoinjector on either a Q4W or Q8W schedule and can be delivered with as few as four total subcutaneous injections over a 24-week period. By contrast, Amgen's OBI approach requires delivery through a subcutaneous infusion pump every two weeks for 24 weeks, equal to 12 injections in total.

Several analysts reiterated coverage on Viridian after the Amgen announcement. Stifel analyst Alex Thompson kept a Buy rating with a $48.00 price target. RBC Capital analyst Lisa Walter maintained an Outperform rating with a $42.00 price target. Leerink Partners analyst Thomas Smith continued to carry an Outperform rating and a $50.00 price target.


Context and market implications

The release of TEPEZZA OBI Phase 3 results has led investors to re-evaluate competitive positioning in the subcutaneous treatment space for Thyroid Eye Disease. The data point to stronger absolute and placebo-adjusted efficacy for Amgen's OBI approach relative to the subcutaneous figures reported by Viridian in the preceding week, while the two approaches differ materially in dosing frequency and delivery method.

Risks

  • Comparative efficacy data are numerical and do not imply regulatory or commercial outcomes; market reaction could remain volatile as stakeholders assess the clinical details.
  • Safety signals for subcutaneous administration included injection site reactions and a range of adverse events such as muscle spasms and tinnitus, which may affect adoption or tolerability for some patients.
  • Differences in delivery method and dosing frequency between the two therapies create uncertainty around patient preference and real-world uptake, potentially influencing market dynamics in the biotech and healthcare sectors.

More from Stock Markets

U.S. Finalizes 2.48% Increase for 2027 Medicare Advantage Reimbursements Apr 6, 2026 U.S. Equities Finish Higher; Dow Advances 0.35% Driven by Consumer Services, Energy and Tech Gains Apr 6, 2026 Toronto Stocks Finish Slightly Higher as Consumer Discretionary, Industrials and Energy Lead Gains Apr 6, 2026 Bovespa Edges Higher as Financials, Power and Real Estate Lift Market to One-Month Peak Apr 6, 2026 Humana Shares Rally After CMS Sets 2027 Medicare Rate Increase; Broad Insurer Gains Follow Apr 6, 2026