Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘pharma innovation’


Real Time Coverage @BIOConvention #BIO2019: What’s Next: The Landscape of Innovation in 2019 and Beyond. 3-4 PM June 3 Philadelphia PA

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD @StephenJWillia2

 

Results from Clarivate
In 2018 most of deals were in CART area but now we are seeing more series A rounds that are on novel mechanisms as well as rare diseases.  US is still highest in venture capital series A but next is China. 10 of top ex US VC are from China, a whole lot of money.
Preclinical is very strong for US VC but China VC is focused on clinical.  First time this year we see US series A break above 100.  But ex US the series A is going down.  Although preclinical deals in US is coming back not like as good as in 2006.  But alot of > 1 billion $ deals.  Most of money into mAbs and protein therapy;  antisense is big and cell therapy is big too; small molecule not as much
ClearView Healthcare
Which innovation classes attracted VC in 2018?
  • Oncology drives a disproportionate focus could be driven by pharma focus on oncology; however there is some focus on neuro and infectious disease
  • therapeutic classes: shift to differentiated technology…. companies want technologic platforms not just drugs.  Nucleic Acid tech and antibody tech is high need platforms.  Startups can win by developing a strong platform not just a drug
There are pros and cons of developing a platform company versus a focused company.  Many VCs have a portfolio and want something to fit in so look for a focused company and may not want a platform company.  Pfizer feels that when alot of money is available (like now) platform investing is fine but when money becomes limited they will focus on those are what will be needed to fill therapy gaps.  They believe buy the therapy and only rent the platform.
Merck does feel the way Pfizer does but they have separate ventures so they can look and license platforms.  they are active in looking at companies with new modalities but they are focused on the money so they feel best kept in hands of biotech not pharma.
At Celgene they were solely focused on approvals not platforms.  Alot of money is required to get these platforms to market.  Concentration for platform companies should be the VCs not partnering or getting bought out by pharma.  it seems from panel speakers from pharma that they are waiting for science to prove itself and waiting for favorable monetary environments (easy money).  However it seems they (big pharma) are indicating that money is drying up or at least expect it too.
At Axial and with VCs they feel it is important to paint a picture or a vision at the early stage.
At Ontogeny, they focus on evaluating assets especially and most important, ThE MANAGEMENT TEAM.  There are not that many great talented drug development management teams he feels out there even though great science out there.
Advertisements

Read Full Post »