Big Pharma as ... a bunch of lemmings?

I have proven that Big Pharma is not interested in innovations and R&D working process are very inefficient. Here are the same suggestions from Wall Street analyst. Very interesting reading:

Wall Street analyst Raghuram Selveraju likens today’s drug-development landscape to the changes seen in men’s professional tennis between the era of Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe and the completely different game played today by the likes of Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic. In today’s tennis, the ball is hit much harder and yet at the same time there is almost no margin for error. Likewise, he says, in drug-development today, companies must navigate tougher regulatory requirements for both efficacy and safety.

 

“The margin for error is razor thin and if you miss it, you lose big time. Aspirin would not get approved at the FDA in today’s atmosphere,” said Selveraju, managing director and head of health care equity research at Aegis Capital.

That desperation leads to the repetition of familiar mistakes which derive from the predictable thinking of too many business development executives at big pharma, Selveraju opined. First, when looking for licensing opportunities, pharmas very often seek out their comfort zone – a potential product for which they can deploy an existing sales force or promote to doctors they already know and communicate with. Also, to be confident in an experimental drug’s preclinical and clinical data, pharmas often want to go into areas where their competitors also have a compound as well as into validated targets.

“Basically, they’re a bunch of lemmings,” Selveraju said. “As soon as a target becomes hot, they all have to have a molecule in that space, hitting that target. We’ve seen that multiple times: with the DPP4 inhibitors, the statins, the S1P inhibitors now, the nucs in hepatitis C.” Bristol paid $2.5 billion for Inhibitex and its nuc in part because months before Gilead had paid $11 billion for Pharmasset and its promising, mid-stage nuc.

And it’s just not that easy, at least not today. The low-hanging fruit largely has been picked – there is no preponderance of easy-to-hit, druggable targets available to business development groups, Selveraju explained. Faced instead with a panoply of more difficult to address therapeutic indications, business development officials often must make decisions based on incomplete data and at the same time pay out huge premiums because of the competition with other companies to find “the next big thing.”

“Big pharma chases targets and it chases indications,” he said. “That’s what leads to these deals with outsized valuations and to the disappointingly high failure rate. If big pharma were to take a more pragmatic approach, a more rational approach, then we might not be seeing so many of these failures and we’d certainly be seeing more judiciously priced deals.”

What then is Selveraju’s prescription for better business development practices? It might disappoint those who want pharma to be in the vanguard of innovation. He recommends incremental innovation – using FDA’s 505b2 pathway to develop products with already defined efficacy and safety – as well as biosimilars and re-purposing. Pharma also should focus on niche and specialty indications, and largely eliminate primary care products and the large commercial operations that come with them.

That may be an unappealing remedy for many, but given the spate of recent blow-ups in pharma/biotech deal-making, something needs to change. Right?

Yes, basically it is right. I think and hope that R&D activity has to be changed. I strongly believe in a paradigm shift. And only states and Big Pharma have the necessary resources for that. Not all Big Pharma corporations will survive the coming dramatic changes. But the winner takes it all...