Tag Archives: inorganic

2020: Learnings From A Yearlong Catastrophic Disruption And Crystal-Gazing 2021

Posted on by
Reply

 Wishing All My Readers A Very Happy, Healthy, Peaceful and Prosperous 2021

Just a few days left for the year 2020 to merge with history. It will be remembered by all – as a year of all-round catastrophic global disruption. With unprecedented impact on human lives, livelihoods, economy, and ways of doing things – sparing virtually nothing. The sole cause of which is an unprecedented single event – Covid-19 pandemic. As of December 27, 2020 morning, India recorded a staggering figure of 10,118,392 new Coronavirus cases with 147,659 deaths. The threat of subsequent waves for further infection of Covid-19 infection continues.

In this article, I shall focus on some critical lessons learnt from the 2020 health crisis, while crystal-gazing 2021. I’ll do this purely from the health care perspective, in general, and the pharmaceutical industry, in particular. Keeping this in view, some of the lessons learnt during the pandemic are as follows:

A. Never allow a sense of hubris setting in:

This is easier said than done. Nonetheless, before the Covid pandemic played havocs with all, many top pharma leaders were, apparently, in a hubris. It was often laced with excessive confidence, if not arrogance. The predominant belief was nothing can go so wrong sans unfavorable policy decisions by the governments. This was against a much-known management dictum for all – always anticipate future probabilities that may impact the business and keep prepared for the worst, while hoping for the best. On a hindsight, this was, obviously jettisoned – lock, stock and barrel. No one was prepared for any biological threats, such as, Covid pandemic, till the deadly virus caught the humanity off-guard around December 2019, as we see below:

The pandemic was expected, but struck unexpectedly:

A pandemic wasn’t totally unexpected either. Therefore, they question that surfaces - Experts warned of a pandemic decades ago. Why weren’t we ready? Just in 2015, even Bill Gates, during a Ted talk titled, “The next outbreak? We’re not ready,” also predicted - based on available facts that an epidemic would kill millions in the future.

He further added: “If anything kills over 10 million people in the next few decades, it’s more likely to be a highly infectious virus rather than a war – not missiles, but microbes.” Gates further emphasized: “We have invested a huge amount in nuclear deterrents, but we’ve actually invested very little in a system to stop an epidemic. We’re not ready for the next epidemic.”

B. Research on anti-infective drugs shouldn’t be pushed to the back burner: 

These warnings were, apparently, ignored by the pharma industry. For example, as reported in the first quarter of 2020, many research-based pharma companies shifted ‘resources away from emerging infectious diseases into more lucrative areas like cancer treatment. Their business decisions risk leaving gaping holes in the fight against epidemics, such as the one caused by the novel Coronavirus.’

Let’s now take a pause for pharma players to ponder. Are they ready, at least now, with a robust plan – based on almost a year’s experience of an unprecedented agony along with its customers, specifically to counter any future biological threat? Be that as it may, there have also been some good outcomes out of the Covid crisis, both for the pharma industry and also for the health care customers.

C. The pandemic hastened pharma’s digital transformation process:

As is known, compared to many other industries, pharma industry was a late learner in the digitalization process of organizations. The new realities of disruptions caused by the pandemic had significantly expedited this process to keep the business going. There were no other effective options available, either, but to move beyond business stabilization and redefine how they do business. The IQVIA article, ‘Digital transformation in a post-Covid-19 world,’ published in the Pharmaceutical Technology, on August 31, 2020, also reiterated this point.

Elaborating the point further, the article pointed out: ‘As a result, acceleration of three key capabilities is occurring to create sustainable competitive advantage,’ as follows:

  • Digital capabilities with modern technology are enabling companies doing the right things during the pandemic and accelerating the process.
  • Providing access to granular data to support the extraction of precise insights into the needs of patients and physicians.
  • Ensuring capabilities for sustaining relationships. While face-to-face interaction has been dramatically reduced, relationships with HCPs and patients are taking new shapes and are of more importance than ever before.

D. Telemedicine came under mainstream care, supported by Government:

Finding no other viable alternatives during the Covid lockdown period and the need to stringently follow prescribed health measures, many patients were pushed to search for a robust digital solution for health care needs. Just as many of them were already using online platforms to meet other regular needs. In that sense, Covid propelled health care into a virtual world, bringing telehealth or telemedicine toward mainstream care, supported by the Government with a policy, for the first time, ever.

E. Quality of pharma response to pandemic enhanced industry image:

As I had discussed before in this blog, Consumer centric communications, driven by the  ‘hope and confidence as companies rushed to come up with COVID-19 vaccines and treatments’ of all, helped to significantly enhance the industry’s image during the year. In my view, pharma shouldn’t let go this opportunity to reposition itself, to reap a rich harvest in the years ahead.

Crystal-gazing 2021: 

A. A lurking fear will keep haunting:

Moving away from the outgoing year – 2020, if one crystal gazes the incoming – yet another brand-new year – 2021, a lurking fear still haunts most peoples’ minds. Will the all-round disruptions of 2020 be the new normal in 2021 – with no further escalation of the current situation?

B. Vaccine rollout will reduce rapid spread, but not eliminate Covid-19:

Gradual rolling out of vaccines may reduce the rapid spread of pandemic, provided Covid-19 doesn’t throw more surprises, such as, complicated mutation, blunting this initiative. However, currently available evidence indicates, the new variant could be more transmissible, yet vaccines may work very well against it.

 C. Masking, physical distancing, hand washing, etc., will continue:

Besides, many yet unknown side effects, the duration of immunity following coronavirus vaccination is still largely unknown due to the simple lack of time we’ve had to study such immune responses. Moreover, the trials do not tell us if the vaccines can block the transmission of the disease from those who are asymptomatic and have been vaccinated. Thus, masking, physical distancing, hand washing, testing, treating and contact tracing, reportedly, will continue to be important in the global campaign against COVID-19, even after vaccine rollout.

D. NDDS for Covid drugs and vaccines may come: 

New formulations, new Covid drug delivery systems, newer methods to bring Covid vaccines, like nasal sprays, in a powder form for easy transportation and to reach more people around the world, are expected to commence in 2021.

E. Waiting for going back to pre-Covid game plan is a losing strategy:

Vaccines are unlikely to take us back to pre-Covid time, any time soon. Even McKinsey & Companypredicted the same in its article: ‘‘How COVID-19 is redefining the next-normal operating model,’ published on December 10, 2020. It emphasized: “With everything disrupted, going back to the same old thing is a losing strategy. The strongest companies are reinventing themselves by embracing pandemic- driven change.”

Many pharma majors are also echoing the same, even as Covid-19 vaccines have started rolling out for public in different parts of the world. After weighing-in the pros and cons of waiting, many of them have articulated: ‘We will not return to the old ways of working.’ They believe, it’s too early to put a specific timeline on turning that page now. Hence, the year 2021, working of the pharma companies is unlikely to be significantly different from the year 2020.

F. Need to capture and respond fast to changing customer behaviors:

Covid-19 pandemic is fast changing many human attitudes and behaviors, forcing organizations to respond. ‘However, the need to respond won’t end when the virus’s immediate threat eventually recedes,’ reaffirmed the Accenture article ‘COVID-19: 5 new human truths that experiences need to address.’ The massive behavior changes of key pharma stakeholders, at a never before scale and speed, will continue to prompt many leading drug companies to respond to them with well thought through digital tools, to gain competitive advantages.

G. Virtual meetings with reps, doctors and others will continue:

As witnessed in 2020, often for the first time – virtual meeting of sales reps, key opinion leaders and others will continue in 2021, even after ‘live’ ones return, but with more innovative structure and content. Pharma marketing’s long awaited and comprehensive digital foray will continue gaining a strong foothold, entering into new areas, without glancing back over the shoulder, in 2021.

H. More new drug launches will move entirely digital:

It began in 2020. For example, dozens of new drug launches moved entirely to digital, for the first time in 2020. As a pharma leader remarked, with the traditional launch framework gone during the pandemic, “we had to throw out the playbook and really embed into people’s heads that playbook is no longer meaningful. It no longer works, and we have to think outside the box.” She further added: “There’s truly no bigger place for a marketer right now. This is the new world.” None can deny this fact as we enter into the new year.

I. Success requirements of pharma professionals will be different:

With significant transformation of pharma’s operational strategies, success requirements of pharma professionals will also be significantly different in the new normal. Quick capturing and fast adaptation to the changing customer behavior for multi-channel engagement digital platforms, will be fundamentally important – not just for business excellence, but for its long-term sustainability, as well. This is a totally new and highly cerebral strategic ballgame, where obsolescence of cutting-edge technology is much faster than anything in the tradition driven old normal.

J. More pharma companies will explore inorganic growth opportunities:

More pharma companies will look for acquisitions to bridge the strategic gaps, as AstraZeneca did in 2020.

Conclusion:

In 2021, Covid Mayhem may possibly be over with a gradual rollout of vaccines. But, the impact of utter disruptions that the pandemic has caused in multiple areas of businesses in 2020, especially within the pharma industry, would continue, as we step into 2021. As the drug industry overwhelmed by Covid-19, reset themselves with the digital transformation in the new normal -for growth beyond Coronavirus, one may also view this much awaited metamorphosis, as a blessing in disguise, as it were.

Overall, as the W.H.O observed very rightly on December 27, 2020: “We throw money at an outbreak, and when it’s over, we forget about it and do nothing to prevent the next one. This is dangerously short-sighted, and frankly difficult to understand.” He further added: “History tells us that this will not be the last pandemic, and epidemics are a fact of life.” I hope, all concerned will realize this point in 2021. Alternatively, we may need to keep ourselves prepared to move, in a similar way, from the current new normal to yet unknown next normal.

By: Tapan J. Ray     

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

 


Organic and Inorganic Growth Strategy For Sustainable Business Excellence

Posted on by
Reply

For an enthusiast, witnessing any organization growing consistently, is indeed exhilarating. This becomes even more interesting at a time when challenges and frequent surprises in the business environment become a new normal. A robust short, medium and long growth strategy turns out to be a necessity for sustaining the business excellence over a long period of time. This is applicable even to the pharma players in India.

The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of an organization usually assumes the role of chief architect of this strategy, which needs to be subsequently approved by the Board of Directors of the company concerned, collectively. The Board holds the CEO, who ultimately carries the can, accountable to deliver the deliverables in creating the desired shareholder value.

Two basic types of growth strategies:

Based on the CEO’s own experience, and also considering the expectations of the Board of Directors, together with the investors, the CEO opts for either of these two following types of basic growth strategies, or a mix of these two in varying proportions:

  • Organic growth: Growing the business through company’s own pursued activities, or all growth strategies sans Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) or by any other means not external to the organization.
  • Inorganic growth: Growing the business through M&A or takeovers.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with either of these two types of basic growth strategies, or their mix in varying proportions. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that with the basic ‘Organic’ growth plan, the companies, or rather their CEOs have a greater degree of sustainable control in various critical areas. These often include, retaining senior management focus on the organizational core strength for sustainable excellence, or even maintaining the organizational culture and people management style, without any possible conflict in these areas.

In this article, I shall explore different aspects of these two basic growth strategies for sustainable business excellence. To illustrate the point better, I shall draw upon examples from two large but contrasting pharma companies. Let me begin this discussion with the following question:

When does a company choose predominantly inorganic growth path?

Its answer has been well articulated in an article of the Harvard Business Review (HBR). It says: “High-growth companies become low growth all the time. Many CEOs accept that as an inevitable sign that their businesses have matured, and so they stop looking internally for big growth. Instead, they become serial acquirers of smaller companies or seek a transformative acquisition of another large business, preferably a high-growth one.”

That said, none can deny that the short to medium term growth of a company following M&A is much faster and its market share and size become much larger than any comparable organizations pursuing the ‘Organic Growth’ path. Thus, more often than not, such initiatives create a ‘domino effect’, especially in the pharma industry, across the world.

Inorganic growth and key management challenges:

The short and medium-term boost in organizational performance post M&A, comes with its complexities in meeting similar expectations of the Company Board, shareholders and the investors, over a long period of time. This is besides all other accompanying issues, such as people related and more importantly in setting the future direction of the company. The cumulative impact of all this, propels the CEO to go all out for a similar buying spree. When it doesn’t materialize, as was expected, both the Board and the CEO are caught in a catch 22 situation. As mentioned earlier, I shall illustrate this point, with the following recent example covering some important areas.

The examples:

“Please don’t go, Ian Read. That’s the message Pfizer’s board of directors has made loud and clear to the almost-65-year-old CEO, who could very well retire with a $15.7 million pension package.” This is what appeared in an international media report on March 16, 2018.

Analyzing the current challenges faced by the company, the media report interpreted the indispensability of Ian Read in an interesting way. It reported: “The pharma giant considers Read the most qualified person to steer the company through a host of challenges, from oncology trial disappointments to investor pressure to make a big acquisition.” Investors are also, reportedly, sending clear signals to the CEO about the tough road ahead.

Thus, Ian Read “who turns 65 in May, also must remain CEO through at least next March and not work for a competitor for a minimum of two years after that to be eligible,” reported Bloomberg on March 16, 2018. It is interesting to note at this point that Mr. Read has been the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Pfizer – the world’s largest pharmaceutical company, since 2010.

A different CEO rated as ‘Top Performing’ pharma leader:

Pfizer CEO’s ‘exemplary leadership and vision’, has been captured in the Proxy Statement by the Independent Directors on the Board of the Company. However, Harvard Business Review (HBR) in its 2016 pan-industry ranking of the “best-performing” CEOs in the world, featured Lars Rebien Sorensen – the then outgoing CEO of Novo Nordisk. He topped the list for the second successive year. Sorensen achieved this distinction ‘Mostly, for his role overseeing astonishing returns for shareholders and market capitalization growth.’ All the CEOs were, reportedly, evaluated by HBR on a variety of financial, environmental, social, and governance metrics.

Interestingly, in the 2017 HBR list for the same, when the Novo Nordisk CEO was out of the race, no pharma CEO could achieve this distinction or even a place in the top 10. Pablo Isla of Inditex (Spanish clothing retailer), Martin Sorrell of WPP (PR major in the UK) and Jensen Huang of NVIDIA (American technology company occupied the number 1, 2 and 3 spots, respectively.

Two interesting leadership examples:

I shall not delve into any judgmental interpretations on any aspect of leadership by comparing the Pfizer CEO with his counterpart in Novo Nordisk. Nevertheless, one hard fact cannot be ignored. The accomplishments of Pfizer CEO were evaluated by its own Board and were rated outstanding. Whereas, in case of Novo Nordisk CEO, besides the company’s own Board, his performance evaluation was done by the outside independent experts on the HBR panel.

Was there any difference in their growth strategy?

Possibly yes. There seems to be, at least, one a key difference in the ‘growth strategy’ of these two large pharma players.

  • Novo Nordisk is primarily driven by ‘Organic growth’ with a focused product portfolio on predominantly diabetes disease area, besides hemophilia, growth disorders and obesity. This has been well captured in the company’s statement on February 6, 2017 where it says: “Organic growth enables steady cash returns to shareholders via dividends and share repurchase programs” and is driven by its Insulin portfolio.
  • Whereas, Pfizer, though in earlier days followed an ‘organic’ growth path, subsequently changed to ‘Inorganic Growth’ route. Pfizer’s mega acquisitions, in its quest for faster growth to be the world’s largest pharma player, include Warner Lambert (2000), Pharmacia (2002) and Wyeth (2009). The key purpose of these acquisitions appears to expand into a diversified product portfolio of blockbuster drugs.

Pfizer did contemplate changing course:

In 2010, barely two weeks on the job of CEO, Pfizer Inc., Ian Read indicated breaking up the company into two core businesses. However, after six years of meticulous planning, on September 26, 2016, the company announced: “After an extensive evaluation, the company’s Board of Directors and Executive Leadership Team have determined the company is best positioned to maximize future shareholder value creation in its current structure and will not pursue splitting Pfizer Innovative Health and Pfizer Essential Health into two, separate publicly traded companies at this time.”

Sustained value creation following the same path not easy:

After the decision to operate as one company and consolidate the business pursuing similar ‘Inorganic Growth’ strategy, Pfizer went ahead full throttle to acquire AstraZeneca for USD119 billion. But, on May 19, 2014, AstraZeneca Board rejected it. Again, on April 05, 2017, Reuters reported, “Pfizer Inc. agreed on Tuesday to terminate its $160 billion agreement to acquire Botox maker Allergan Plc, in a major victory to U.S. President Barack Obama’s drive to stop tax-dodging corporate mergers.”

Apparently, the current Pfizer CEO is now expected to finish his unfinished agenda, at least for the short to medium term, as the current blockbuster drugs continue losing the steam.

Conclusion:

It’s a common belief that slowing down of a company’s business performance is a compelling reason for its switch from the ‘Organic’ to ‘Inorganic’ growth strategy. The new CEO of Novo Nordisk – Lars Fruergaard Jorgensen also appears to subscribe to this view. While, reportedly, including negative growth at the low end in constant currencies in its guidance for 2017, Jorgensen apparently, confided that M&A will now be a part of the company’s growth search.

On facing a similar situation, the above HBR article suggested the CEOs to fight the short-term pressures of the business cycle of moving away from the ‘Organic’ growth path. This can be overcome by various means, as good ideas for organic growth can always attract required resources and support.

While choosing an appropriate basic growth strategy for the organization – ‘Organic’ or ‘Inorganic’, the CEO’s focus should be on what is best for sustainable and long-term business performance, without being trapped by the prevailing circumstances. Thus, addressing the internal causative factors, effectively, would likely to be a better idea in resolving the issue of a sustainable business performance. This is regardless of the underlying reasons, such as gradually drying up the new product pipeline while blockbuster drugs are going off patent, or due to several other different reasons.

Nevertheless, in the balance of probability, ‘Organic’ growth strategy appears to be less complex and is fraught with lower business risks and uncertainties. Consequently, it reflects a greater likelihood of sustainable achievements for the CEO, and in tandem, a long-term financial reward for the shareholders, investors, and finally the organization as a whole.

By: Tapan J. Ray   

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.

Biologic Medicine: Ushers in a different ‘Mega Race’ for inorganic growth

Posted on by
Reply

During the last several years the success of biologics compared to conventional small-molecule drugs to meet the unmet needs of patients, is gradually but surely changing the area of focus of pharmaceutical R&D altogether, making the biotech companies interesting targets for M&A. Over a period of so many years, the small-molecule blockbuster drugs business model made pharmaceuticals a high-margin industry. However, it now appears that the low hanging fruits to make blockbuster drugs have mostly been plucked.

These low hanging fruits involved therapy areas like, anti-ulcerants, anti-lipids, anti-diabetics, cardiovascular, anti-psychotic etc. and their many variants, which were relatively easy R&D targets to manage chronic ailments. Hereafter, the chances of successfully developing drugs for cure of these chronic ailments, with value addition, would indeed be a very tough call.

Deploying expensive resources towards finding a cure for so called ‘chronic diseases’ may also not promise a strong commercial incentive, as the treatment for ulcer, lipid disorders, diabetics, hypertension etc. are currently continues lifelong for a patient and a cure will limit the treatment to a short to medium term period.

Greater promise in biologics:

On the other hand, the bottom-line impact of a successful R&D outcome with safer and effective drugs to treat intractable ailments like,various types of cancer and blood disorders, auto-immune and Central Nervous System (CNS) related diseases, neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s, Myasthenia gravis, Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimer’s diseases etc., will be huge. It is believed that well targeted drugs of biologic origin could well be successful treatment for such intractable diseases.

The golden opportunity of meeting the unmet needs of the patients with effective biologics, especially in high-growth therapeutics, as mentioned above, has given the M&A activities in the pharma-biotech space an unprecedented thrust.

Biologic versus conventional drugs:

Biologics Conventional and NME drugs
Large molecules (>5000 molecular weight) Small molecules (~500 molecular weight)
Bio-technologically produced or isolated from living sources Chemically synthesized
Complex structure/mixtures (tertiary structure, glycosylated) Simple well-defined structure
High target specificity Less target specificity
Generally parenteral administration (e.g., intravenous) Oral administration possible (pills)

(Source: MoneyTreeTM Report. PWC, 2009)

According to IMS, Biologics contribute around 17% of global pharmaceutical sales and generated a revenue of US$120 billion MAT March 2009. As we see today, gradually more and more global pharmaceutical companies, who used to spend around 15% to 20% of their annual sales in R&D, are channelizing a large part of the same to effectively compete in a fast evolving market of biologics through mainly M&A route. This is also driven by their strategic intent to make good the loss in income from the blockbuster drugs going off patent and at the same time fast dwindling R&D pipeline.

A shift from small molecule based blockbuster model to a biologics-based blockbuster one:

Frost & Sullivan forecasts a shift from small molecules-based blockbuster model to a biologics-based blockbuster one for the global pharmaceutical majors, just as biologics like Enbrel ,Remicade, Avastin, Rituxan and Humira, as mentioned below, have already proved to be money spinners.

The top 10 global brands in 2009:

Rank Product Chemical/Biologic Global Sales US$ Mn
1 Lipitior Chemical 12,511
2 Plavix Chemical 9,492
3. Seretide/Advair Chemical 7,791
4. Enbrel Biologic 6,295
5. Diovan Chemical 6,013
6. Remicade Biologic 5,924
7. Avastin Biologic 5,744
8. Rituxan Biologic 5,620
9. Humira Biologic 5,559
10. Seroquel Chemical 5,121

(Source: EvaluatePharma)

Faster growth of biologics attracting attention of large pharma players:

Currently, faster growth of biologics as compared to conventional new chemical entities is driven by novel technologies and highly targeted approach, the final outcome of which is being more widely accepted by both physicians and patients. The large global pharmaceutical companies are realizing it pretty fast. The type and quality of their recent acquisitions, vindicate this point.

Mega race for biologics and vaccines:

Driven by the above factor, in 2009 Pfizer acquired Wyeth for US $68 billion, Roche acquired Genentech for US $ 47 billion and Merck acquired Schering-Plough for US $ 41 billion. Only the above three M&A are valued more than US $ 150 billion and that too at a time of global financial meltdown.

Acquisition of Wyeth enabled Pfizer to expand its product-mix with vaccines, animal health and consumer products businesses and at the same time leveraging from Wyeth’s biologics capability.

Similarly, Merck got tempted to acquire Schering-Plough mainly because of latter’s rich R&D pipeline with biologics.

Roche, which was basically a pharmaceutical company, post-acquisition of Genentech, became a major bio-pharmaceutical company with a great promise to deliver in the years ahead.

Other M&As, which would signify a shift toward the growing space for biologics are the acquisition of MedImmune by AstraZeneca and Insmed by Merck and the recent bid of Sanofi-Aventis for Genzyme.

Faster growth of biologics:

As mentioned above, despite patent cliff, biologics continue to contribute better than small molecules to overall growth of the R&D based global pharmaceutical industry.  Most of these biologics are sourced either through acquisition or  collaborative arrangements.

Currently cash strapped biotech companies with molecules ready for human clinical trials or with target molecules in the well sought after growth areas like, monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, cell or gene therapies, therapeutic protein hormones, cytokines and tissue growth factors, etc. are becoming attractive acquisition targets, mainly by large pure pharmaceutical companies with deep pockets.

Another M&A model:

Besides mega race for mega acquisitions, on the other hand, relatively smaller pharmaceutical players have started acquiring venture-backed biotech companies to enrich their product pipelines with early-stage drugs at a much lesser cost. For example, with the acquisition of Calistoga for US $ 600 million and venture-backed Arresto Biosciences and CGI Pharmaceuticals, Gilead known for its HIV drugs, expanded into blood cancer, solid tumor and inflammatory diseases. In 2009 the same Gilead acquired CV Therapeutics for US $1.4billion to build a portfolio for cardiovascular drugs.

Smaller biotech companies, because of their current size do not get engaged in  very large deals, unlike the top pharma players, but make quick, decisive and usually successful deals.

Another commercial advantage for biologics – lesser generic competition :

After patent expiry of a New Chemical Entity (NCE), innovators’ brands become extremely vulnerable to cut throat generic competition with as much as 90% price erosion, as these small molecules are relatively easy to replicate by many generic manufacturers and the process of getting their regulatory approval is not as stringent as biosimilar drugs in most of the markets of the world.

On the other hand biologics, which involve difficult, complex and expensive biological processes for development together with stringent regulatory requirements for getting marketing approval of biosimilar drugs especially in the developed markets of the world like, EU and USA, offer some significant brand protection from generic competition for quite some time, even after patent expiry.

It is for this reason, brands like the following ones are expected to go strong for some more time to come, without any significant competition from biosimilar drugs:

Brand Company Launch date
Rituxan Roche/Biogen idec 1997
Herceptin Roche 1998
Remicade Centocor/J&J 1998
Enbrel Amgen/Pfizer 1998

Change of appetite:

In my view, the voracious appetite of large pharmaceutical companies for inorganic growth through mega M&As, will ultimately subside for various compelling reasons.  Instead, smaller biotech companies, especially with products in Phase I or II of clinical trials without further resource to take them to subsequent stages of development, will be prime targets for acquisition by the pharma majors at an attractive valuation.

Conclusion:

Although the large pharma majors are experimenting with pure biotech companies in terms of acquisitions and alliances, it will be interesting to see the long term ‘DNA Compatibility’ between these companies’ business models, organization and work/employee culture and market outlook to improve their overall global business performance, significantly. Only future will tell us whether or not just restructuring of the R&D set up of companies like, Pfizer, Merck, Roche and perhaps Sanofi-aventis at a later date, helps synergizing the overall R&D productivity of the merged companies.

In this context, Frost & Sullivan had commented: “Widely differing cultures at Roche and Genentech could make retaining top scientists a huge challenge. Roche is Swiss and a stickler for precision and time, while Genentech has a more ‘Californian attitude’ and is laid back and efficient in its work”.

Though the long-term overall financial impact of the ‘mega race for mega deals’, as mentioned above, is less clear to me, acquisition of biotech companies, especially well thought through smaller ones, seems to be a pretty smart move towards inorganic growth by the global innovator companies.

By: Tapan J Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.