The University of California San Diego, Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences Drug Commercialization course brings you lectures from both faculty and industry experts. With this course, recorded on campus at UCSD, we seek to share our access to top people in the field who bring an unprecedented range of expertise on drug commercialization. This course will cover pharmacoeconomic, marketing strategy, intellectual property strategy, portfolio management, managed markets and strategic alliances. It will also have a lecture case study from startup to success. In addition, the course will discuss post-marketing clinical trials or Phase 4 trials. These are conducted after a new drug has been approved by the regulatory agencies and launched. In these studies, the new drug is prescribed in an everyday healthcare environment using a much larger group of patients. This enables new treatment uses for the new drug to be developed, comparisons with other treatments for the same indication to be made, and determination of the clinical effectiveness of the new drug in a wider variety of patient types, and more rare side effects, if any, may be detected . Pre-marketing strategy should be instigated as early as Phase 1 clinical trials to ensure that the market's needs are incorporated into the new drug's overall development. Later phases when clinical results are presented at international medical conferences the marketing strategy is then refined in order to develop an awareness amongst the medical community who will be prescribing the new drug. In addition to the marketing strategy, pricing strategy and a tactical plan will be developed. Promotional material, and the sales force will be trained so that when the product is approved they can promote the drug to physician, pharmacist and nurses. This course is intended as part 3 of a series: Drug Discovery (https://www.coursera.org/learn/drug-discovery), Drug Development (https://www.coursera.org/learn/drug-development) and Drug Commercialization. We would highly recommend that you take the courses in order since it will give you a better understanding on how a drug is discovered in the lab before being tested in clinical trials and then launched in the market place.
Strategic Alliances and Deals in 2015
Loading...
來自 University of California San Diego 的課程
Drug Commercialization
176 個評分
從本節課中
Strategic Alliances in Academia, Pharma and Biotech, Williams Ettouati, Pharm. D.
與講師見面
Williams S. Ettouati, Pharm.D.Director, Industrial Relations & Development; Health Sciences Associate Clinical Professor, N.S.
Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences
Joseph D. MaAssociate Professor of Clinical Pharmacy
Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences
Alright, so let's talk about Strategic Alliances and Deals in 2015.
I'm going to try to give you a picture
of what happened on 2015 in a number of the deals.
Unlike these pictures, not all the strategical rises as
hurtful even though in this picture, what is kind of interesting
is that I think the bird is actually helping the rhino.
Anyway, let's go through that.
So, if we look at the number of deals throughout the past since 1995,
and you have, again, access to all these reports,
you can see that number of deals have been really increasing.
Substantially.
You can see,
I put on the slide really the larger deals that were in billions of dollars.
The largest one was actually the Pfizer- Warner-Lambert deal that happened in 2000.
But there are many, many more deals that have happened since then.
2015 was a record year in the M&A sector both in the US and
Europe, about eight billion, I'm sorry 208.8 billion total
transaction volume including biodollars, what do biodollars mean?
I think a lot of you already know this.
But basically, it includes the totality of the deal if all the milestones,
all the payment, were to be met.
Unfortunately, that does not happen all the time, and
you can see that a big chunk of the deals were really completed for US companies.
So one of the questions one could ask and people ask this very often.
This is another study that was done by McKenzie, if I remember correctly,
where they looked at what is the impact of deals.
And if you do a large deal and you are the acquirer, does it really work?
Does it creat shareholder value, does it also work for the companies.
And I this slide really shows that the top 20 survivors have been really thriving and
have been doing really really well.
So, from that perspective when people argue that Megamerger don't,
I think if they are don well they work very well.
If we look at the number of VC Backed companies, all including all the Bio
dollars as I mentioned, you can see that in 2015 it was actually pretty big.
It has been increasing substantially nicely
over the past five seven years which is quite nice for the bio-tech sector.
Which has been doing really well.
And a number of the VCs have been very pleased with that,
because this is basically means that pharma has been doing larger deals with
higher upfront payments for these companies.
That is also probably due to the fact that a number of companies have brought their
products to later stage of development than just being very, very early stage.
Okay, so now let's talk about the different types of alliances.
And at the end of the day, these alliances,
as you see on this graphic, have to be win-win, otherwise, what's the point?
So, strategic alliances and merger and acquisitions are quite different.
Very often, as I mentioned, what you are looking for in a strategic alliance
Is really a joint R&D, or a joint R, joint product development,
potentially joint manufacturing if you're doing pharma to pharma, joint marketing.
And as well, long-term sourcing of agreement from the perspective that you
really want to be in it together.
I'm not going to go over informal collaborations on contractual agreement.
Which means fee for service, we will cover the different type of alliances and
they include non-equity alliance, equity alliance, joint venture,
collaborations with academia, I won't cover to much measure in acquisition,
because from an academic standpoint it's not always, there's not really much M&A
from that standpoint, you'd never see A company really acquiring [INAUDIBLE] .I've
seen in the tech world companies acquiring or
actually, taking the whole department of [INAUDIBLE] institutions.
But, that's a different story.
All right.
So, really, at the end of the day, research collaboration is
either you invent the product or the technology, you swap it, meaning that you
exchange it,or you buy it, which is really what strategical lines are really about.
The RMAs.
Here are the different types of collaborations, so we have research
collaborations, which can be very basic, may be one to two years,or maybe.
Multiple years depending on developers.
You have drug development alliances, if it's too expensive, multiple companies
will go in especially here for example in the cardiovascular area and
join their fundings as well as their resources.
Joint ventures, asset swaps, again I talked about a number of this one,
I'm not going to repeat everything Let's cover R&D alliances,
sharing risks and rewards through enhanced collaborations.
Obviously, when you are doing an alliance, you want to reduce the risks, you want to
diversify your risk by doing an alliance, you want to potentially reduce the cost.
And you want to enhance the breadth and depth of knowledge because people
are different, different companies or in academia versus companies and
you want to have access to basically more brain power.
The alliance focus is basically getting IP, getting innovation.
And in some instances, technology platforms.
One other thing that is absolutely key is what are the best practices.
Well, you want to define very clearly the scope of the alliance.
What does it entail.
What deliverables are going to be delivered.
You want a strong governance.
Very often you want a team that is going to be a joint team on both sides,
that's going to work together.
That's going to be basically managing the process.
The objective have to be clearly defined from the beginning with the common
process.
Everybody needs to agree.
It has to be completely transparent,
meaning that you need to be able to share the knowledge and
everything that goes through, otherwise, it's never going to work.
And then importantly.
You need to have legal protection and it came from property and
you need to define all this very early on.
Let's talk about model Academic industry collaboration.
So, fo example research relationship with a single investigator.
This are usually very easy to do.
Because you don't have too many layers.
You have fee-for-service agreement,
you have unrestricted research support and master agreement.
For example, Sanofi and UCSF,
a major alliance where basically they were looking and
sharing expertise in diabetes research, and identifying new drug targets.
UCSD did that also with Pfizer for example.
So, there is really these are very big type of master agreement.
And then there is also potentially bio clusters creating centers of
collaboration.
So for example, AstraZenca and University of Pennsylvania did this to generate
new Alzheimer's drug candidates where they provided a lot of money.
I mentioned the Pfizer Center for Therapeutic Innovations.
Again, with a number of academic institutions
where they provided basically funding up front and
continues funding to improve productivity throughout their research.
Let's talk about between pharma, other pharma and academia alliances.
Gilead Sciences did this with Yale A $100
million deal over 10 years in cancer research.
These deals are not too frequent.
Sanofi-Aventis, for example, with Columbia University and diabetes,
and with Harvard and Translational research.
GSK, GlaxoSmithKline were in the Stem Cells Institute for five years.
So, as you can see, these are really, really big deals.
Not all of them are like that.
There's other types of collaborations, for example, a Bayer Grant4 Target.
And all these are with academics and so it really helps.
And I think that industry has been really transforming from that perspective
in really going to academic centers and
gaining the research from academic centers.
Let's talk about financial terms.
This is going to be reasearch which is very interesting and
again I give you the link to the research itself that you have access online but
I just want to summarize it here.
This evaluates about 2000 deals between 2007 and 2015
Upfront cash goes from anywhere from $80,000 a year to $1.1 million,
you know it really depends on the scope.
Again there is no cookie cutter type of deal it
really depends on what you're looking at.
Up to 5 years of license maintenance and payments, sometime up-front equity
Especially when you're dealing with small biotech companies with big farmers
companies you usually don't have they don't give equity to academic centers.
Deal size overall can range any where from $80000 to ten million but
I just showed you in the previous slide that you can have much larger deals with
upfront and milestone which is basically bending on the deliverables.
The other non-regulatory and sales milestone can be also very,
very the median for this milestone about 1.1 million.
And it really depend on IND filling,
phase two, phase three kind of a try which you covered before,
new drug application either at the FDA or that EMA and first approval.
Sometime, you can get also development and secondary indication by stone,
so for example if the drug has been approved for one indication.
And then there is novel indications or maybe novel formulations that is approved,
then you can get additional milestones which usually by a tech or
academia is very pleased about.
And the royalty are going to be based on the sales and so very often it is tiered
Royalties in the sense that depending on how big the sales of the product is,
then you can have decreasing royalty but the medium is about 3.5%.
And again it depends on the stage as to which when you license or
you do a collaborations of the product And then, if there is a sublicense,
there is also revenue that usually is shared anywhere from 10 to 45%.
Marketing alliances, this is really primarily between pharma And Biotech or
Pharma and Pharma.
The objectives here in marketing alliances is really to have marketing access,
increase the market share and really be able to have a much
broader access let's say you have a company that is only US based,
a company that's only European based, well if they do marketing alliance
it allows them to have then much broader market access.
Market segmentation.
They are going to focus primarily on how to measure success by Market Share.
Also, by revenue and sometime by profit.
Because, revenue is not the only thing.
You can increase your revenue and not increase your profit.
For example, Joint Venture doing Pfizer and GSK 2009.
Where they basically wanted to have much broader
access in the deficiency market virus, treating HIV
and wanted to have a better development and research and
have better marketing to make the business a lot more economically valuable.
For example, AstraZeneca build their biologic pipeline that way by both M&A and
strategic alliances, half of their pipeline today
was basically through M&A and strategic alliances and
this as I say in this slide many at a time by acquiring companies
from 2005 they quite kudos, they acquired from 2006-2007
a number of other companies that are listed here are antibody and
then they continue doing deals even as of today.
And companies continue to do this to have access again as I mentioned earlier to
build their pipeline and really transform themselves.
Portola Pharmaceuticals which is a small biotech company, for
example did a $120 million deal.
In 2013 they started a non-exclusive clinical collaboration
with Bayer & Janssen.
To support primary there phase two and
three study of their product in US and Europe.
In 2016, the license the same product for
Japan to BMS and Pfizer, so again expending the market.
And to actually use their product and other factor.
With their antidote.
And what's interesting is BMS and Pfizer was then responsible for
development, regulatory activities and commercialization
in Japan because Portola Pharmaceutical didn't know how expertise in Japan.
So, what do Portola get out of this?
$15 million up-front payment.
$90 million potentially in regulatory and sales-based milestones and
double-digit royalty based on net sales in the territory of the drug,
which is Andexanet Alfa.
For Bayer, it includes, it allow them to include
Rivaroxaban in this clinical development programme, which is quite important.
Bayer is providing technical support and is funding the clinical study.
What does Portola get in addition to this?
Another milestone upfront payment of $5 million.
And of course, milestones of approval when the Japanese Ministry of Health and
Labor and Welfare approves the drug.
So, as you can see, this is a very creative and
innovative deal where basically on the same drug by segmenting the market and
segmenting also Co-administration or co-collaborations with other product,
in this case an antidote to this Factor Xa inhibitor can have a substantial
influence and generate substantial revenue for Portola Pharmaceuticals.
Let's now move to another type of collaboration, and this is New Consortiun.
This is basically a consortiun that was established Several years ago,
but in 2016, a number of other companies joined that consortium.
Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, and Lily joined AbbVie, Biogen, Merck, UCB, and
the project founder Critical Path Institutes or C-Path to basically
streamline and accelerate discovery and development for Parkinson's disease.
This was something that was developed in
the UK where they committed a million pounds and
really what they wanted to do is pull a number of companies to work together.
And to share data on a disease that has been very difficult.
And doing that it allows all these companies to have a lot more access and
hopefully come up with new treatment.
