I found this article survey. https://www.thepha
Post# of 154436
(Total Views: 261)
Posted On: 04/03/2019 9:53:55 PM
I found this article survey.
https://www.thepharmaletter.com/article/emerg...or-partner
Emerging Pharmaco’s dilemma: ‘Go it alone’ or partner?
The emerging pharmaceutical and biotech industry is thriving. Between 2006 and 2015, 105 companies - the majority of which were in the USA - launched a product for the first time. And, over 60% of those products were originally discovered in universities and small biotech companies.
All such pre-commercial companies must make a fundamental decision at some point in the drug development process: is it more advantageous to take the product to market on our own or to partner with an established large pharmaceutical company? This decision is typically made as developers approach the end of Phase II clinical trials, but can take place at any time - even after the drug has launched.
Recognizing the dilemma, QuintilesIMS analyzed the approaches of companies that launched products for the first time between 2006 and 2015 to understand their funding/commercialization strategies.
Among the key findings:
The funding models for early- versus late-phase research/commercialization are different. Venture capitalists generally exit deals at the end of Phase II, leaving emerging companies with the need to find new sources of funding.
For commercialization, more emerging companies opt to go it alone than to partner with a large pharmaceutical company. The split is approximately 60/40 between going it alone and partnering.
In terms of first-year sales, going it alone appears to be more profitable for the originator than partnering. Going it alone produces twice as many medium-sized companies in the first year than does partnering. This is true despite the emerging company’s smaller promotional capabilities.
One of the main short-term benefits of partnering may be in negotiating with payers. Companies going it alone are more likely to face payer high rejection rates than those in partnerships.
Success for first-time launchers hinges on having a high-value product and access to capital. To be successful, new products have to offer patients better outcomes, either in terms of fewer side effects, fewer hospitalizations, improved quality of life, increased productivity, or longer survival. There are ample examples of successful launches under both models - going it alone and partnering.
The QuintilesIMS report analyzes the approaches of 105 companies that launched products for the first time between 2006 and 2015 to understand their funding/commercialization strategies and examine the implications for the three types of players involved: the research companies, their potential large pharma commercialization partners, and venture capitalists.
https://www.thepharmaletter.com/article/emerg...or-partner
Emerging Pharmaco’s dilemma: ‘Go it alone’ or partner?
The emerging pharmaceutical and biotech industry is thriving. Between 2006 and 2015, 105 companies - the majority of which were in the USA - launched a product for the first time. And, over 60% of those products were originally discovered in universities and small biotech companies.
All such pre-commercial companies must make a fundamental decision at some point in the drug development process: is it more advantageous to take the product to market on our own or to partner with an established large pharmaceutical company? This decision is typically made as developers approach the end of Phase II clinical trials, but can take place at any time - even after the drug has launched.
Recognizing the dilemma, QuintilesIMS analyzed the approaches of companies that launched products for the first time between 2006 and 2015 to understand their funding/commercialization strategies.
Among the key findings:
The funding models for early- versus late-phase research/commercialization are different. Venture capitalists generally exit deals at the end of Phase II, leaving emerging companies with the need to find new sources of funding.
For commercialization, more emerging companies opt to go it alone than to partner with a large pharmaceutical company. The split is approximately 60/40 between going it alone and partnering.
In terms of first-year sales, going it alone appears to be more profitable for the originator than partnering. Going it alone produces twice as many medium-sized companies in the first year than does partnering. This is true despite the emerging company’s smaller promotional capabilities.
One of the main short-term benefits of partnering may be in negotiating with payers. Companies going it alone are more likely to face payer high rejection rates than those in partnerships.
Success for first-time launchers hinges on having a high-value product and access to capital. To be successful, new products have to offer patients better outcomes, either in terms of fewer side effects, fewer hospitalizations, improved quality of life, increased productivity, or longer survival. There are ample examples of successful launches under both models - going it alone and partnering.
The QuintilesIMS report analyzes the approaches of 105 companies that launched products for the first time between 2006 and 2015 to understand their funding/commercialization strategies and examine the implications for the three types of players involved: the research companies, their potential large pharma commercialization partners, and venture capitalists.
(0)
(0)