This document discusses network and alliances in the biotechnology industry. It begins by describing the three main sectors of biotechnology: healthcare, agriculture, and industrial biotechnology. It then explores why biotechnology firms collaborate with external partners, noting that the high costs and risks of drug development often require sharing resources. Finally, it discusses factors that influence partnership formation, such as personal relationships between founders, and the need for biotech firms to partner with large pharmaceutical companies that have more development and marketing capabilities.
The U.S. Biopharmaceutical Industry (2014): Perspectives on Future Growth and...PhRMA
The capability to innovate is fast becoming the most important determinant of economic growth and a nation’s ability to compete and prosper in the 21st century global knowledge-based economy.
The innovative biopharmaceutical industry stands out among high-value knowledge-based industries, including aerospace, automotive, and semiconductors, as a driver for future U.S. economic growth. Aging populations throughout the world and rising purchasing power for medical advances among emerging economies are expected to drive increased demand for prescription medicines in the coming years, providing opportunities to increase production and exports.
2014 Profile: Biopharmaceutical Research IndustryPhRMA
Biopharmaceutical science is a complex, collaborative, resource-intensive enterprise. It requires a highly skilled workforce, sustained investment, and long-term vision. Critical to its success are policies and regulations that foster innovation and broad access to new medicines. By working together—on the science, the research and the policies—we
can help ensure that medicines live up to patients’ hope for new solutions to our greatest health care challenges.
“Managing the changing biopharma risk equation” is an Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) report sponsored by MilliporeSigma. This paper explores in detail global pharmaceutical companies’ growth strategies and their plans for managing the associated risks.
The annual 2013 Pharmaceutical Industry Profile provides an overview of the sector, highlighting the latest medical advances, the impact of biopharmaceutical companies on the economy and the future of innovation.
Each year, the U.S. biopharmaceutical industry spends billions of dollars on intensive research to discover new medicines for patients. Though the research process is long, uncertain, and expensive, the treatments that eventually result save lives and improve the health of people all around the world. Recent decades have seen enormous progress in the fight against major causes of death and disability, including cancer, HIV/AIDS, mental illness, and diabetes, as well as against numerous rare diseases. In addition, advances by companies in the biopharmaceutical sector play an important role in controlling costs of health care by reducing hospitalizations, surgeries, and other costly care.
Biopharmaceutical research and development is an investment in people, services, ideas and products.
This dynamic and innovative industry directly supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and indirectly supports millions more across the United States. The sector contributes significantly to the economy on the national, state, and local levels.
The 2012 Pharmaceutical Industry Profile explores the critical role that biopharmaceutical companies play in the lives of patients and in the U.S. economy. Chapter 1 describes recent advances in medicines and the value medicines bring to patients and the health care system. Chapter 2 discusses the positive economic impact of the industry and describes several key challenges facing the industry today. Chapter 3 describes major programs that ensure that people have access to the medicines they need.Chapter 4 explains the research and development (R&D) process and how the biopharmaceutical industry fits into the vibrant life sciences ecosystem. Through ongoing efforts to advance science and translate research findings into new medicines, biopharmaceutical companies bring value every day to patients, their families, and the entire economy.
Medical devices equipped for the futureBrand Acumen
The document discusses disruptive changes underway in the medical devices industry that will transform it over the next 5 years. It identifies 5 major disruptors: 1) a power shift to payers and providers who are focusing more on cost and value-based evidence, 2) heightened regulatory scrutiny that is increasing compliance costs, 3) unclear sources of innovation as R&D spending yields diminishing returns, 4) new healthcare delivery models that are shifting care settings out of hospitals, and 5) a need to serve lower socioeconomic classes in developing markets. The disruptors threaten $34 billion in industry profits by 2020 but taking appropriate measures could help maintain revenue growth and offset margin declines, preserving significant value for medical device companies.
2014 01 Boris Azais - How Pharmaceutical companies are transforming for the...Boris Azaïs
The pharmaceutical industry is facing challenges to its business model from increasing costs of research and development, declining productivity in new drug approvals, earlier generic competition, and government cost containment measures. In response, companies are pursuing more collaborations, focusing on specialty and orphan drugs for unmet needs, and exploring new business models centered around patient outcomes and value-based care. The future remains promising thanks to scientific advances, but sustaining innovation will require partnerships across industry, regulators, payers, and patients.
The U.S. Biopharmaceutical Industry (2014): Perspectives on Future Growth and...PhRMA
The capability to innovate is fast becoming the most important determinant of economic growth and a nation’s ability to compete and prosper in the 21st century global knowledge-based economy.
The innovative biopharmaceutical industry stands out among high-value knowledge-based industries, including aerospace, automotive, and semiconductors, as a driver for future U.S. economic growth. Aging populations throughout the world and rising purchasing power for medical advances among emerging economies are expected to drive increased demand for prescription medicines in the coming years, providing opportunities to increase production and exports.
2014 Profile: Biopharmaceutical Research IndustryPhRMA
Biopharmaceutical science is a complex, collaborative, resource-intensive enterprise. It requires a highly skilled workforce, sustained investment, and long-term vision. Critical to its success are policies and regulations that foster innovation and broad access to new medicines. By working together—on the science, the research and the policies—we
can help ensure that medicines live up to patients’ hope for new solutions to our greatest health care challenges.
“Managing the changing biopharma risk equation” is an Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) report sponsored by MilliporeSigma. This paper explores in detail global pharmaceutical companies’ growth strategies and their plans for managing the associated risks.
The annual 2013 Pharmaceutical Industry Profile provides an overview of the sector, highlighting the latest medical advances, the impact of biopharmaceutical companies on the economy and the future of innovation.
Each year, the U.S. biopharmaceutical industry spends billions of dollars on intensive research to discover new medicines for patients. Though the research process is long, uncertain, and expensive, the treatments that eventually result save lives and improve the health of people all around the world. Recent decades have seen enormous progress in the fight against major causes of death and disability, including cancer, HIV/AIDS, mental illness, and diabetes, as well as against numerous rare diseases. In addition, advances by companies in the biopharmaceutical sector play an important role in controlling costs of health care by reducing hospitalizations, surgeries, and other costly care.
Biopharmaceutical research and development is an investment in people, services, ideas and products.
This dynamic and innovative industry directly supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and indirectly supports millions more across the United States. The sector contributes significantly to the economy on the national, state, and local levels.
The 2012 Pharmaceutical Industry Profile explores the critical role that biopharmaceutical companies play in the lives of patients and in the U.S. economy. Chapter 1 describes recent advances in medicines and the value medicines bring to patients and the health care system. Chapter 2 discusses the positive economic impact of the industry and describes several key challenges facing the industry today. Chapter 3 describes major programs that ensure that people have access to the medicines they need.Chapter 4 explains the research and development (R&D) process and how the biopharmaceutical industry fits into the vibrant life sciences ecosystem. Through ongoing efforts to advance science and translate research findings into new medicines, biopharmaceutical companies bring value every day to patients, their families, and the entire economy.
Medical devices equipped for the futureBrand Acumen
The document discusses disruptive changes underway in the medical devices industry that will transform it over the next 5 years. It identifies 5 major disruptors: 1) a power shift to payers and providers who are focusing more on cost and value-based evidence, 2) heightened regulatory scrutiny that is increasing compliance costs, 3) unclear sources of innovation as R&D spending yields diminishing returns, 4) new healthcare delivery models that are shifting care settings out of hospitals, and 5) a need to serve lower socioeconomic classes in developing markets. The disruptors threaten $34 billion in industry profits by 2020 but taking appropriate measures could help maintain revenue growth and offset margin declines, preserving significant value for medical device companies.
2014 01 Boris Azais - How Pharmaceutical companies are transforming for the...Boris Azaïs
The pharmaceutical industry is facing challenges to its business model from increasing costs of research and development, declining productivity in new drug approvals, earlier generic competition, and government cost containment measures. In response, companies are pursuing more collaborations, focusing on specialty and orphan drugs for unmet needs, and exploring new business models centered around patient outcomes and value-based care. The future remains promising thanks to scientific advances, but sustaining innovation will require partnerships across industry, regulators, payers, and patients.
Global demand for medical polymers is expected to reach 6,411.7 kilo tons in 2018, growing at a CAGR of 5.6% from 2012 to 2018. Medical polymers are primarily used in medical devices and equipment, packaging, and tissue engineering applications. Fibers and resins currently dominate the market, though biodegradable plastics are expected to see exponential growth. North America is the largest market currently but Asia Pacific is anticipated to be the fastest growing region due to manufacturing shifts. The key drivers of growth are increasing life expectancies, aging populations, and a preference for home healthcare.
Big Pharma is facing a crisis as many blockbuster drugs are going off-patent and the pipeline of new drugs is weak. R&D spending has doubled over the past decade but productivity has declined, with fewer new drugs approved despite higher costs. Alternative strategies such as mergers and acquisitions, in-licensing, and partnerships have had mixed results in addressing the pipeline problem. The document discusses challenges in drug development and strategies the pharmaceutical industry has used to boost R&D productivity.
This document summarizes the market for obesity products and treatments. It discusses how the field is moving "back to basics" to better understand the physiological mechanisms behind obesity and weight loss. This new understanding may help develop more effective minimally invasive solutions. The US market for minimally invasive bariatric devices is expected to grow moderately over the next five years, reaching over $500 million by 2016, driven by factors like the growing obese population. However, current treatment options have only achieved limited success in treating obesity.
This document provides an overview and analysis of financialization in the pharmaceutical industry, using Pfizer's attempted takeover of AstraZeneca as a case study. It finds that the erosion of the blockbuster drug model due to patent expirations, increasing costs, and regulatory pressures has reduced profitability and led pharmaceutical companies to pursue mergers and acquisitions to meet shareholder demands for returns. While M&As provide short-term growth, they may undermine long-term R&D productivity and threaten high-skilled jobs in the UK, as demonstrated by the Pfizer-AstraZeneca deal. The UK government has an obligation to consider the impact on domestic employment.
This is part of the MaRS BioEntrepreneurship series.
Speaker: Lynne Zydowsky, Ph.D., Managing Principal Zydowsky Consultants
* Explore the development of regulated drugs and devices
* Understand where and how value is generated in the pharmaceuticals industry
* Appreciate the interplay between science and business in a biotech company
To download a copy of the audio for this presentation, please go to:
http://www.marsdd.com/bioent/oct16
For the event blog and Q+A, please see:
http://blog.marsdd.com/2006/10/17/bringing-together-art-and-science/
Competitive Analysis in Pharmaceutical IndustryYee Jie NG
Eli Lilly is a global pharmaceutical company founded in 1876. The document analyzes Eli Lilly's competitive position using Porter's Five Forces and SWOT analysis. It identifies key trends in the pharmaceutical industry including mergers and acquisitions, aging populations, expiring patents, and increased regulations. These trends present both opportunities and threats for Eli Lilly. The analysis suggests Eli Lilly should pursue strategies like partnerships, emerging markets, and ongoing R&D to adapt to changes in the competitive landscape over the next 10 years.
This document discusses trends in conducting clinical trials in emerging markets. It finds that 59% of surveyed companies have already begun trials in emerging markets, with 41% planning to within 2 years. Asia is the main target region. Conducting trials in emerging markets allows companies to potentially lower costs and access new patient populations. However, it also presents challenges around partnerships, supply chains, and ensuring data quality and regulatory compliance. The document examines differences between pharmaceutical, biotech, and life sciences companies in their approaches to emerging market trials.
Unique Device Identification and GS1: Defining Elements in the Future of Glob...Loftware
This white paper, as the title suggests, is about new national and international mandates for a global standard to be used
in the Unique Device Identification (UDI) of medical devices and other healthcare products. It examines the global trading
opportunities, on an enormous scale, that can be captured by early adopters or forfeited by default by those who wait,
dismiss the idea, or discount the powerful market and competitive forces that UDI developments are driving. Also offered
is a starting blueprint for regulatory compliance professionals, packaging engineers, C-suite executives and manufacturing experts who agree the time to start meeting the UDI opportunity has clearly arrived.
DHL_LSH_Europe_Whitepaper_MedicalDevices_WebIan Moore
The document discusses the challenges facing the European medical device supply chain. It notes that the industry is facing pressures from the transition to value-based healthcare with more decision makers involved, intensifying cost pressures from payers looking to reduce costs, and stricter regulations. The supply chain must transform to address these challenges by becoming more efficient and tailored to better meet the needs of all decision makers while also reducing costs.
Z Score Model analysis on Pharma industryRanga Nathan
This document provides an overview of the Indian pharmaceutical industry. It discusses the size and growth of the Indian economy and pharmaceutical industry. The pharmaceutical industry in India is the third largest by volume and is dominated by generic drugs, which account for 20% of global exports. The market size of the pharmaceutical industry in India is $20 billion and is expected to grow at a 20% CAGR over the next 5 years. The government has introduced several initiatives like allowing 100% FDI in pharmaceutical manufacturing and introduced new standards to enhance quality and help the industry's continued growth.
Catalent is the global leader in drug development and manufacturing. It has over 1,300 patents and is well-positioned to benefit from substantial industry growth of 6-10% annually through 2020. While pricing pressures could slow industry growth, Catalent's business model focusing on development, delivery, and supply solutions provides long-term stable revenues. The recommendation is to buy Catalent stock, which trades at $29.13 but has a target price of $35.99 based on discounted cash flow analysis.
The Indian pharmaceutical industry faces competitive forces including the threat of new entrants, bargaining power of customers and suppliers, and competitive rivalry among existing firms. The document discusses Porter's five forces framework and outlines strategies for Indian pharmaceutical companies to boost competitiveness such as increasing R&D expenditures, rationalizing drug price controls, improving industry-academic relationships, and exploiting opportunities in generic drugs and traditional medicines. It also analyzes strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for the industry.
Future Challenges of Clinical Development; a View from the CRO - Hani ZakiTTC, llc
The document discusses current challenges and future trends in clinical development from the perspective of a CRO. It notes that the global CRO market is large but fragmented, and outlines pressures on the pharmaceutical industry like high R&D costs, patent expirations, and regulatory demands. The text also examines trends towards more global, efficient trials using new technologies and less traditional geographies to address these challenges. It argues that collaboration between industry, regulators and CROs will be key to transforming clinical research methods.
The global sales of medicines reached $942 billion in 2011, a 5.1% increase from the previous year. This total is expected to reach $1.5 trillion by 2020 due to population growth and an aging population. However, the pharmaceutical industry faces issues such as losing $148 billion annually from 2012-2018 due to drugs going off patent and rising research and development costs of $800 million to $4 billion to bring a new drug to market. The Indian pharmaceutical industry has grown substantially over the past few decades but faces threats from increasing regulation and low-cost competition from other countries.
The pharmaceutical industry is facing challenges developing new drugs due to limited knowledge of biology and chemistry. There are only about 500 validated drug targets and 9,500 known chemical compounds. The industry has relied on developing oral small-molecule drugs but is running out of viable targets and compounds. To succeed in the future, companies will need to accelerate target validation, invest more in new areas like genomics and proteomics, broaden their portfolios, and increase collaboration with external partners to gain expertise in areas like biologics development.
The document summarizes the global pharmaceutical industry, its history and competitive environment. It describes how the industry has evolved from the 1950s with new drug development and increased regulation. Barriers to entry into the industry are high and increasing due to lengthy development times and large R&D costs. The future of the industry is analyzed as facing continued pressure from generics, healthcare cost controls and industry consolidation into fewer large global companies focused on specific drug franchises.
Business Strategy Analysis of The Global Pharmaceutical IndustryTouseef Ahmed
The global pharmaceutical industry is considered as one of the essential industries present in every country. The global pharmaceutical industry manufactures a variety of medicines. These industries generally produce licensed drugs that are generally used for the purpose of medication. Their R&D department is well equipped for the production of the licensed drugs used for medication. The pharmaceutical industries generally deal with medications that are branded or generic and medical devices and tools (DiMasi et al. 2016). They need to follow a number of laws and regulations of the government that are concerned with the patenting, testing, pricing and they need to guarantee safety and the efficiency and marketing of the drugs.
This study regarding the global pharmaceutical industry actually describes the changes that occurred in the industry since the beginning and its environment, facilities, its success factors etc. Lastly, this study will provide an overall view of the future prospects of the global pharmaceutical industries based on the analysis that will be done in this study.
GSK’S Andrew Witty: Addressing Neglected Tropical Diseases and global health ...Nejmeddine Jemaa
Every day, Non Governmental Organization NGOs is confronted with the lack of access to adequate or affordable medical tools in the field. They face two major challenges the high cost of existing medicines on the one hand, and the absence of appropriate or effective treatments for many of the diseases affecting our patients on the other, we are talking about Neglected Tropical Disease NTD in the Least developed Countries LDCs.
Andrew Witty, Chief Executive Officer of Glaxo Smith Klein (GSK) delivered a speech at the Harvard Business School in Boston on February 2009 entitled “Big pharma a catalyst for Change” focused on two issues: a) promoting innovation to prevent or treat NTDs in the world’s Least Developed Countries by creating a “pharmaceutical patent pool”; b) improving the access to medicine in the poorer countries by lowering the prices of GSK’s medicines.
In deed, we are assisting a radical change in pharma Business model, we are moving from conflict to collaboration through the Medicines Patent Pool in the hope that it speed up access to newer medicines, and boost initiatives that make use of alternative financing mechanisms in order to develop new, more appropriate treatments that respond to medical needs.
On the other hand the pricing strategy dilemma facing the generic manufacturers and the non inclusion of HIV which is a major neglected disease in LDCs in the patent pool may compromise the success of such business model.
In order to deal with that two issues, GSK should include HIV drugs in their patent pool as other manufacturers and NGO are doing, and concerning the pricing strategy they should emphasize on the high quality of the original drug mandatory to eradicate this NTDs and communicate more on the fact that GSK will invest 20% of these drugs profit to improve the infrastructure of these LDCs.
This document discusses Eli Lilly and Company's drug development strategy. It notes that the pharmaceutical industry is very profitable but also high-risk and capital intensive. Eli Lilly aims to shorten its drug development cycle through acquisitions and adopting new technologies like combinatorial chemistry. The document then focuses on Eli Lilly's migraine drug project and evaluates three scenarios for developing its lead compound, considering factors like market share, patent expiration, and clinical trial success rates. Experts provide varying estimates of clinical trial success under each scenario. The document concludes by recommending that Eli Lilly continue investing in new technologies to cut development times while also maintaining a large CNS drug portfolio and pipeline to mitigate risks.
How to finance the biomedical research with securitization techniques, a prac...Paolo Vaona
This document discusses financing biomedical research through securitization techniques. It first provides an overview of the biomedical research market, noting its risky and competitive nature. It then analyzes market performance data showing biotech investments have lower returns than other industries. The document also examines challenges in the market like high costs and volatility that make it difficult to attract capital. It proposes that securitization techniques may help reduce risk and variance, and attract more funding to support valuable research.
The document recommends an overweight position in the healthcare biotechnology industry. Major companies are seeing double digit revenue growth and high profit margins due to limited competition from patents. However, government regulation poses a threat if it imposes price caps or reduces patent lives. Additionally, companies rely on a small number of "star drugs" whose expiration or replacement could significantly harm their value.
Global demand for medical polymers is expected to reach 6,411.7 kilo tons in 2018, growing at a CAGR of 5.6% from 2012 to 2018. Medical polymers are primarily used in medical devices and equipment, packaging, and tissue engineering applications. Fibers and resins currently dominate the market, though biodegradable plastics are expected to see exponential growth. North America is the largest market currently but Asia Pacific is anticipated to be the fastest growing region due to manufacturing shifts. The key drivers of growth are increasing life expectancies, aging populations, and a preference for home healthcare.
Big Pharma is facing a crisis as many blockbuster drugs are going off-patent and the pipeline of new drugs is weak. R&D spending has doubled over the past decade but productivity has declined, with fewer new drugs approved despite higher costs. Alternative strategies such as mergers and acquisitions, in-licensing, and partnerships have had mixed results in addressing the pipeline problem. The document discusses challenges in drug development and strategies the pharmaceutical industry has used to boost R&D productivity.
This document summarizes the market for obesity products and treatments. It discusses how the field is moving "back to basics" to better understand the physiological mechanisms behind obesity and weight loss. This new understanding may help develop more effective minimally invasive solutions. The US market for minimally invasive bariatric devices is expected to grow moderately over the next five years, reaching over $500 million by 2016, driven by factors like the growing obese population. However, current treatment options have only achieved limited success in treating obesity.
This document provides an overview and analysis of financialization in the pharmaceutical industry, using Pfizer's attempted takeover of AstraZeneca as a case study. It finds that the erosion of the blockbuster drug model due to patent expirations, increasing costs, and regulatory pressures has reduced profitability and led pharmaceutical companies to pursue mergers and acquisitions to meet shareholder demands for returns. While M&As provide short-term growth, they may undermine long-term R&D productivity and threaten high-skilled jobs in the UK, as demonstrated by the Pfizer-AstraZeneca deal. The UK government has an obligation to consider the impact on domestic employment.
This is part of the MaRS BioEntrepreneurship series.
Speaker: Lynne Zydowsky, Ph.D., Managing Principal Zydowsky Consultants
* Explore the development of regulated drugs and devices
* Understand where and how value is generated in the pharmaceuticals industry
* Appreciate the interplay between science and business in a biotech company
To download a copy of the audio for this presentation, please go to:
http://www.marsdd.com/bioent/oct16
For the event blog and Q+A, please see:
http://blog.marsdd.com/2006/10/17/bringing-together-art-and-science/
Competitive Analysis in Pharmaceutical IndustryYee Jie NG
Eli Lilly is a global pharmaceutical company founded in 1876. The document analyzes Eli Lilly's competitive position using Porter's Five Forces and SWOT analysis. It identifies key trends in the pharmaceutical industry including mergers and acquisitions, aging populations, expiring patents, and increased regulations. These trends present both opportunities and threats for Eli Lilly. The analysis suggests Eli Lilly should pursue strategies like partnerships, emerging markets, and ongoing R&D to adapt to changes in the competitive landscape over the next 10 years.
This document discusses trends in conducting clinical trials in emerging markets. It finds that 59% of surveyed companies have already begun trials in emerging markets, with 41% planning to within 2 years. Asia is the main target region. Conducting trials in emerging markets allows companies to potentially lower costs and access new patient populations. However, it also presents challenges around partnerships, supply chains, and ensuring data quality and regulatory compliance. The document examines differences between pharmaceutical, biotech, and life sciences companies in their approaches to emerging market trials.
Unique Device Identification and GS1: Defining Elements in the Future of Glob...Loftware
This white paper, as the title suggests, is about new national and international mandates for a global standard to be used
in the Unique Device Identification (UDI) of medical devices and other healthcare products. It examines the global trading
opportunities, on an enormous scale, that can be captured by early adopters or forfeited by default by those who wait,
dismiss the idea, or discount the powerful market and competitive forces that UDI developments are driving. Also offered
is a starting blueprint for regulatory compliance professionals, packaging engineers, C-suite executives and manufacturing experts who agree the time to start meeting the UDI opportunity has clearly arrived.
DHL_LSH_Europe_Whitepaper_MedicalDevices_WebIan Moore
The document discusses the challenges facing the European medical device supply chain. It notes that the industry is facing pressures from the transition to value-based healthcare with more decision makers involved, intensifying cost pressures from payers looking to reduce costs, and stricter regulations. The supply chain must transform to address these challenges by becoming more efficient and tailored to better meet the needs of all decision makers while also reducing costs.
Z Score Model analysis on Pharma industryRanga Nathan
This document provides an overview of the Indian pharmaceutical industry. It discusses the size and growth of the Indian economy and pharmaceutical industry. The pharmaceutical industry in India is the third largest by volume and is dominated by generic drugs, which account for 20% of global exports. The market size of the pharmaceutical industry in India is $20 billion and is expected to grow at a 20% CAGR over the next 5 years. The government has introduced several initiatives like allowing 100% FDI in pharmaceutical manufacturing and introduced new standards to enhance quality and help the industry's continued growth.
Catalent is the global leader in drug development and manufacturing. It has over 1,300 patents and is well-positioned to benefit from substantial industry growth of 6-10% annually through 2020. While pricing pressures could slow industry growth, Catalent's business model focusing on development, delivery, and supply solutions provides long-term stable revenues. The recommendation is to buy Catalent stock, which trades at $29.13 but has a target price of $35.99 based on discounted cash flow analysis.
The Indian pharmaceutical industry faces competitive forces including the threat of new entrants, bargaining power of customers and suppliers, and competitive rivalry among existing firms. The document discusses Porter's five forces framework and outlines strategies for Indian pharmaceutical companies to boost competitiveness such as increasing R&D expenditures, rationalizing drug price controls, improving industry-academic relationships, and exploiting opportunities in generic drugs and traditional medicines. It also analyzes strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for the industry.
Future Challenges of Clinical Development; a View from the CRO - Hani ZakiTTC, llc
The document discusses current challenges and future trends in clinical development from the perspective of a CRO. It notes that the global CRO market is large but fragmented, and outlines pressures on the pharmaceutical industry like high R&D costs, patent expirations, and regulatory demands. The text also examines trends towards more global, efficient trials using new technologies and less traditional geographies to address these challenges. It argues that collaboration between industry, regulators and CROs will be key to transforming clinical research methods.
The global sales of medicines reached $942 billion in 2011, a 5.1% increase from the previous year. This total is expected to reach $1.5 trillion by 2020 due to population growth and an aging population. However, the pharmaceutical industry faces issues such as losing $148 billion annually from 2012-2018 due to drugs going off patent and rising research and development costs of $800 million to $4 billion to bring a new drug to market. The Indian pharmaceutical industry has grown substantially over the past few decades but faces threats from increasing regulation and low-cost competition from other countries.
The pharmaceutical industry is facing challenges developing new drugs due to limited knowledge of biology and chemistry. There are only about 500 validated drug targets and 9,500 known chemical compounds. The industry has relied on developing oral small-molecule drugs but is running out of viable targets and compounds. To succeed in the future, companies will need to accelerate target validation, invest more in new areas like genomics and proteomics, broaden their portfolios, and increase collaboration with external partners to gain expertise in areas like biologics development.
The document summarizes the global pharmaceutical industry, its history and competitive environment. It describes how the industry has evolved from the 1950s with new drug development and increased regulation. Barriers to entry into the industry are high and increasing due to lengthy development times and large R&D costs. The future of the industry is analyzed as facing continued pressure from generics, healthcare cost controls and industry consolidation into fewer large global companies focused on specific drug franchises.
Business Strategy Analysis of The Global Pharmaceutical IndustryTouseef Ahmed
The global pharmaceutical industry is considered as one of the essential industries present in every country. The global pharmaceutical industry manufactures a variety of medicines. These industries generally produce licensed drugs that are generally used for the purpose of medication. Their R&D department is well equipped for the production of the licensed drugs used for medication. The pharmaceutical industries generally deal with medications that are branded or generic and medical devices and tools (DiMasi et al. 2016). They need to follow a number of laws and regulations of the government that are concerned with the patenting, testing, pricing and they need to guarantee safety and the efficiency and marketing of the drugs.
This study regarding the global pharmaceutical industry actually describes the changes that occurred in the industry since the beginning and its environment, facilities, its success factors etc. Lastly, this study will provide an overall view of the future prospects of the global pharmaceutical industries based on the analysis that will be done in this study.
GSK’S Andrew Witty: Addressing Neglected Tropical Diseases and global health ...Nejmeddine Jemaa
Every day, Non Governmental Organization NGOs is confronted with the lack of access to adequate or affordable medical tools in the field. They face two major challenges the high cost of existing medicines on the one hand, and the absence of appropriate or effective treatments for many of the diseases affecting our patients on the other, we are talking about Neglected Tropical Disease NTD in the Least developed Countries LDCs.
Andrew Witty, Chief Executive Officer of Glaxo Smith Klein (GSK) delivered a speech at the Harvard Business School in Boston on February 2009 entitled “Big pharma a catalyst for Change” focused on two issues: a) promoting innovation to prevent or treat NTDs in the world’s Least Developed Countries by creating a “pharmaceutical patent pool”; b) improving the access to medicine in the poorer countries by lowering the prices of GSK’s medicines.
In deed, we are assisting a radical change in pharma Business model, we are moving from conflict to collaboration through the Medicines Patent Pool in the hope that it speed up access to newer medicines, and boost initiatives that make use of alternative financing mechanisms in order to develop new, more appropriate treatments that respond to medical needs.
On the other hand the pricing strategy dilemma facing the generic manufacturers and the non inclusion of HIV which is a major neglected disease in LDCs in the patent pool may compromise the success of such business model.
In order to deal with that two issues, GSK should include HIV drugs in their patent pool as other manufacturers and NGO are doing, and concerning the pricing strategy they should emphasize on the high quality of the original drug mandatory to eradicate this NTDs and communicate more on the fact that GSK will invest 20% of these drugs profit to improve the infrastructure of these LDCs.
This document discusses Eli Lilly and Company's drug development strategy. It notes that the pharmaceutical industry is very profitable but also high-risk and capital intensive. Eli Lilly aims to shorten its drug development cycle through acquisitions and adopting new technologies like combinatorial chemistry. The document then focuses on Eli Lilly's migraine drug project and evaluates three scenarios for developing its lead compound, considering factors like market share, patent expiration, and clinical trial success rates. Experts provide varying estimates of clinical trial success under each scenario. The document concludes by recommending that Eli Lilly continue investing in new technologies to cut development times while also maintaining a large CNS drug portfolio and pipeline to mitigate risks.
How to finance the biomedical research with securitization techniques, a prac...Paolo Vaona
This document discusses financing biomedical research through securitization techniques. It first provides an overview of the biomedical research market, noting its risky and competitive nature. It then analyzes market performance data showing biotech investments have lower returns than other industries. The document also examines challenges in the market like high costs and volatility that make it difficult to attract capital. It proposes that securitization techniques may help reduce risk and variance, and attract more funding to support valuable research.
The document recommends an overweight position in the healthcare biotechnology industry. Major companies are seeing double digit revenue growth and high profit margins due to limited competition from patents. However, government regulation poses a threat if it imposes price caps or reduces patent lives. Additionally, companies rely on a small number of "star drugs" whose expiration or replacement could significantly harm their value.
What were they trying to achieveIn 1991, DIA attempted to rem.docxphilipnelson29183
What were they trying to achieve?
In 1991, DIA attempted to remodel and upgrade the arduous, time-consuming luggage check-in and transfer system. The idea involved bar-coded tags being fixed to each piece of luggage that went through ‘Destination Coded Vehicles’. This would fully automate all baggage transfers, integrate all three terminals, and reduce aircraft turn-around time significantly.
Why did they fail?
The main cause of failure was the scope creep of quality and cost schedule. When the company DIA was contracted to help in BAE’s project, they failed to meet the time schedule of the company. They instead stuck to their schedule of two years. The management took unnecessary risked because the project was underscored yet the management took unnecessary risks. Another item in their agenda which the company ignored: the company ignored the airline’s planning sessions and omitted the airline as a stakeholder. The project, as a result, featured oversized sports/ski equipment luggage and separate maintenance track and another track was not designed at all. The large part of the system was not done and had to be redone. This made the airport to be delayed by 16 months and has had a loss of $2 billion were incurred as a result. The project was later scrapped.
Lesson learned in the project is stakeholder engagement in project management. From the project management principles, the two companies failed to communicate to one another during the project until it was too late. Communication is one of the pillars in for project success. Another mistake which DIA committed was failing to plan and consult regularly.
References
Hartmann, T., & Spit, T. (2016). Legitimizing differentiated flood protection levels–Consequences of the European flood risk management plan. Environmental Science & Policy, 55, 361-367.
Benson, D., Lorenzoni, I., & Cook, H. (2016). Evaluating social learning in England flood risk management: An ‘individual-community interaction’perspective. Environmental Science & Policy, 55, 326-334.
Chan, M. J., Huang, Y. B., Wen, Y. H., Chuang, H. Y., Tain, Y. L., Wang, Y. C. L., & Hsu, C. N. (2015). Compliance with risk management plan recommendations on laboratory monitoring of antitumor necrosis factor-α therapy in clinical practice. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association.
Running head: BCG MATRIX COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS FOR MEDTRONIC 1
BCG MATRIX COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS FOR MEDTRONIC 2
BCG Matrix Competitive Analysis for Medtronic
Tyrell S Grant
BCG Matrix Competitive Analysis for Medtronic
BCG Matrix
Medtronic is a multinational organization that specializes in the production of different medical devices. The company has different Strategic Business Units (SBU) that are also known as departments. The departments are divided depending on the roles being played, and these are what that determines that amount of finances that will be invested in the department. The reason is that the different roles earn profits or .
Analysis of drivers that cause restricted access to funding for smaller biotech companies.
A detailed reviewed of the steps
venture capitalists and companies are
taking — models such as fail-fast R&D, asset-centric funding and more.
Proposal of a model that
could radically change R&D by taking a
much more holistic approach to drug
development, sharing information to
learn in real time across the cycle of care
and fundamentally changing how risk
and reward are allocated.
A presentation of Genentech strategic growth options vis-a-vis the current economic and structural challenges the biotech industry is facing.
Team project, December 2008.
Biotech revolution changed the pharmaceutical industry, triggering a wave of risky collaborations between rivals. Based on the research findings, we answer the question why cooperation in the field of immuno-oncology is a better strategy for Pfizer and Merck KGaA, which aim to achieve competitive advantage quickly and with minimum effort. Combining their assets and core expertise companies realize benefits of greater size and variety in the conduct of research, development and commercializing of their new breakthrough therapy for cancer treatment.
Is pharmaceutical company funded research bad research.pptx1Dr. Avishek Amar
Is it true that research results funded by industry should always be taken with a pinch of salt ??
Well not really...there is another side of the coin too...
This document provides an analysis of ResMed, a leading manufacturer of medical equipment for sleep disorders. It begins with an executive summary and overview of the company. It then conducts an external environment analysis, using Porter's Five Forces to examine opportunities and threats in the industry. Finally, it performs an internal analysis of ResMed's value chain and distinctive resources and capabilities. The document analyzes factors influencing ResMed's competitive position in the sleep device industry.
Understanding the dynamics interaction within indonesia healthcare competitionAlexander Decker
The document analyzes the dynamics of competition within Indonesia's healthcare industry. It finds that:
1) The bargaining power of consumers is low due to price discrimination, lack of information, and integration among providers.
2) Substitutions for healthcare services exist but are limited by high prices, provider steering, and insurance restrictions.
3) Providers have strong bargaining power through concentration, price discrimination between patients, and integration between hospitals, insurers, and diagnostic service providers.
The competitive dynamics in Indonesia's healthcare industry appear to result in unhealthy competition and limit benefits for consumers and society. Further policy reforms are needed to encourage healthier competition.
Collision Forces: Scientific Integrity Meets the Capital MarketsLindsay Meyer
The landscape for innovation in the life sciences requires substantial participation from the investment community to finance new ventures and support existing projects. As such, appropriate risk-adjusted returns are expected by investors. Gaining insight into the progress of important clinical trials has catalyzed an information asymmetry between direct participants in the scientific process and the investment community. Direct participants can gain materially by breaching confidentiality agreements or engaging in insider trading, unethical practices that compromise scientific integrity. This report explores the nature of conflicts that can arise from the unique relationships specific to entities developing human therapeutics and proposes three mechanisms for minimizing negative externalities of the research process: raising awareness of the problem, mandating professional organizations to adopt and enforce strict policies for sharing material information, and establishing project work teams to limit the number of individuals exposed to non-public information.
This short report summarize the big pharmaceutical companies’ strategies towards the microbiome therapeutic area.
We analyzed how pharmaceutical companies succeed to manage the opportunities of the field while managing the risk in the same time
- Biopharmaceutical manufacturing is undergoing a paradigm shift from unique, specialized production of individual products to more uniform, systematic production that can apply to multiple products. This increases manufacturing efficiency and the number of products that can be produced.
- Contract manufacturing is increasing and promises to open the pipeline for new biopharmaceuticals by reducing costs for innovators and increasing availability of products. Using contract manufacturers reduces financial risks for originators.
- Technological convergence has standardized cell culture and purification processes, allowing "one facility fits all" manufacturing that regulatory agencies now accept for contract manufacturing. This reduces costs and speeds development and availability of new products.
The document discusses the role of biosimilars in driving innovation in the biopharmaceutical industry. It finds that biosimilars represent a new sector that will increase competition and drive incremental and substantial innovation around biologic products and processes. While biopharma companies have recently focused more on conservative innovations, biosimilar competition may encourage more emphasis on higher-risk/higher-reward innovations. Carefully managed innovation portfolios will help ensure resources are used efficiently.
This document summarizes recent trends in medical technology dealmaking and mergers and acquisitions. There have been several large "megamergers" in the medical technology space over the past year, including Medtronic's acquisition of Covidien for $49.9 billion. Other areas of focus for deals have been startups developing minimally invasive technologies, drug delivery devices, and digital health technologies. However, venture capital investment in medical devices overall remains lackluster compared to biotechnology.
This document provides a global perspective on the evolving biosimilars landscape and market. It finds that after slow initial growth, the biosimilars market is poised for accelerated expansion between 2015-2020 as major biologics lose patent protection, US legislation establishes a regulatory pathway, and payers increase adoption to control costs. The market could reach $1.9-2.6 billion by 2015, up from $378 million currently, with the largest opportunities in oncology, diabetes, and rheumatoid arthritis. Key drivers include cost pressures on healthcare systems and the availability of lower-cost biosimilar alternatives to expensive biologic drugs. However, significant barriers remain due to varying regulations worldwide and resistance from biologics manufacturers.
The document analyzes the biotechnology industry in India using Porter's Five Forces framework. It finds that the threat of new entrants and competitive rivalry within the industry are low due to high capital requirements and specialized expertise needed. The threat of substitute products and bargaining power of suppliers are also low. However, the bargaining power of customers is medium as some drugs have substitutes and customers are fragmented with a few influential buyers.
Genentech was the first biotech company founded in 1976 with the goal of using recombinant DNA technology to develop new drugs. It successfully transferred genes between species and established a new business model in the pharmaceutical industry. While Genentech initially struggled to profit from its technology, by the late 1980s it began showing promising results by altering its business model to focus on areas like oncology, immunology, and neuroscience. It became the first biotech company to go public and bring a genetically engineered drug to market.
Different Stages of Medical Device Development and Drug Development: PepgraDi...PEPGRA Healthcare
The difference between medical device product development and pharmaceuticals that are supposed to be launched are based on industry composition where above 80% small and medium-sized companies require medical devices and large multinational organizations seek new medicines. Pepgra gives you the different stages of Medical Device Development and Drug Development, some are:
1. Lead discovery optimization
2. Pre-clinical Research
3.. Clinical Research
4. Post- Market safety monitoring
Continue Reading: https://bit.ly/3ryCQC4
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYz_BOArGhA
If you need any further information, then please contact via
Email us: sales.cro@pepgra.com
Whatsapp: +91 9884350006
The document discusses the need for a new paradigm for funding and conducting biotech research and development (R&D) given constraints in the current financing environment. It proposes a model called Holistic Open Learning Networks (HOLNets) that would bring together diverse participants like healthcare providers, patient groups, data analytics firms, and social media networks. HOLNets could fundamentally change R&D by encouraging data sharing, allowing researchers to learn from each other in real time, and taking advantage of the shift in healthcare to outcomes-focused and data-driven models.
1. Name: Bipin KC
Student no: M00525615
Module code: MGT2440
International Operations and Innovation Management
Module Leader: Hsing-Fen lee
Title: Network and Alliance in Biotechnology
2. Impacting almost every aspect of human life with superlative discoveries leading to an
increase in the lifespan and quality of human life through an engine of economic growth and
development (Ranade; 2008). Moreover a source for the greatest amount of wealth for
investors, biotech has been the greatest volume of public debate in the 21st century
(Ranade; 2008). Companies that use living organisms, molecular or cellular techniques to
provide chemicals, food and services in order to meet human needs and the industries they
operated are called “BIOTECH” industries (Bractic; 2014). As a part of the biotechnology
industries, these companies are engaged in manufacturing and developing of large
molecules medicines that are similar or identical to body proteins (Bractic; 2014). Firstly,
this essay will be describing the biotechnology industry and sub-sectors involved with in it.
Secondly it will explore the significance of network and alliances in biotech firms by
highlighting why and how the biotechnology firms collaborate with external partners? Lastly,
the essay will be summing up the argument to have a conclusion.
Biotechnology is a development of a technology and products that harnesses cellular and
bio molecular leading improvement on one’s life and health of the planet as a whole. The
use of biotechnology takes us back to 6,000 years to make useful food products, such as
bread and cheese, and to preserve dairy products (biotechnology, 2015). Furthermore
biotechnology industry can be broadly segmented into three sectors. A study by Bur rill
(2007) states that biotechnology comprises sectors, such as healthcare, agriculture and
industrial bio technology (cited by Sytch, 2008). The modernization of these sub-sectors
through modification of microorganisms, plants and farmed animals for improved food
production by improving breeding’s in plants and animals has resulted in creation of large
and highly profitable industrial outlet simultaneously, providing great value to society
(Ranade; 2008).
Coming to industrial biotechnology, where commercial application takes place using cells or
parts of cells like enzymes for industrial production process, which includes consumer goods,
bioenergy and biomaterials. Moreover, due to the advancement in this sector there has
been successful application for the generation of innovative and valuable products, which
3. were impossible to produce using traditional chemical synthesis (Festel; 2014). One of these
applications has resulted in the development of industries, which will be posing
economically, and environmentally sustainable development process like chemical
industries (Festel; 2014).
Simultaneously, coming to Health/medical biotech which can be arguably stated as the most
important sector in biotechnology sector as demonstrated by Ranade’s (2008) that “Medical
biotech has been by far the most influential, beneficial, and controversial field of biotech”.
Rapid advancement in molecular biology resulted bio scientists to pursue a remarkable
achievement in controlling the biological process. These discoveries has helped to improve
the lifespan and quality of human life (Ranade; 2008). However Bratic (2014) states that
“Incorrect assumptions involving drug development costs, anticipated revenues, or risk can
have significant impact on any valuation”, which shows the process of drug development
has been extremely expensive and risky. Moreover it requires building strong foundation for
drug discovery which is difficult to achieve since the skilled employees and sucessful
products often move to one of the established drug development hubs (Friedman; 2014).
Bratic (2014) argues that biopharma industries encompasses various risk factors and hurdles
before commercializing successful drugs, which has hinted that it might be inevitable for
small biopharma industries to develop and sell their drugs on their own.
A study by Ernst and Young (1998) shows that 70% of United States biotech firms were
involved in strategic alliance (cited by Sytch, 2008). Furthermore it might be due to the lack
of in-house expertise and efficiencies that pharma and biotech industries has experienced
an outsourcing phenomenon (Ranade; 2008). One of the main reason for biotechnology
firms going in collaboration in order to share their costs and risks of innovation as there is
high risk of uncertainty in the market (Stych; 2008) which can be shown as in 2010 the
average return on research and development in pharmaceutical industry were less than
nine percentage (Bractic; 2014). Similarly Tanox, a young biotech company was chronically
short of cash and it looked over for corporate partner and merged alongside with Ciba-Geigy
and another Swiss company in 1996 to become Novartis (Hamilton; 205). Eisenhardt and
Schoonhoven (1996) studies have demonstrated that there is certain degree of flexibility
and ease in the burden of resources on jointly developing new product with an alliance
partner than going solo (cited in Sytch; 2008). This might be because the flexibility and lack
4. of pressure may nurture the innovative capabilities of an individual leading to an increase in
the efficiency as a whole. Additionally biotech firms might seek alliance with established
rivals in order to avoid competition with them or blocking other potential competitor (Sytch;
2008). This can be shown when collaboration between Genentech and Novartis in the
production of “TNX-901” (a peanut allergic drug) successfully blocked a third independent
company from moving ahead (Hamilton; 2005).
Evidences has shown that many biotechnology firms are unable to execute a full product
development cycle due to the lack of resources and this makes them to seek for contractual
agreement (Sytch; 2008). “Pharma players are well equipped to conduct clinical trials and
work with FDA to obtain product approval” (Ranade; 2008; p.10) which seems lacking in
biotech industry. In reference to Tanox who was one of the partners of Genentech and
Novartis had to fight a legal battle which lasted five years and costs $100 million in legal
fight, later was compelled to sign a settlement with its partners to start testing Xolair,
another peanut allergy drug (Hamilton; 2005). Similarly, Biotech industry neither have
required sales and marketing expertise nor tremendous financial muscle which is must for
passing all phases of laboratory and clinical development and successful commercialization
of product (Ranade; 2008). Thus, biotechnology companies in general lack in these
capabilities and have to seek for potential partners.
It might be inevitable to just look at, what takes or drives these firm’s to collaborate with
external partners instead of finding out how do they choose their partners or the process
that underlies in between the biotech firms and large companies that motivate them to
negotiate apart from the calculative driver’s. Coming to the process of choosing the external
partners; homophily, tendency of individuals to associate and bond with similar others has
been regarded as one of the factor that might fosters mutual trust and likelihood of the
partnership (Sytch; 2008). Similarly a study by Baldi, Stern and Dukerich (2007) have found
that if the founders of biotech firms have graduated or work at same educational
institutions or workplace then firms are likely to collaborate between them (Sytch; 2008).
Furthermore this can also be argued in reference to the development and
commercialization of exenatide, a drug for diabetes patients. Here, “Lilly have been
fortunate that Mr. Thompson who was Lilly’s vice-president of business development and
Mr. Cook Amily’s chief executive were old friends who has worked for twenty- eight years
5. together” (Abboud; 2005). However a study by Stern and Dukerich (2007) demonstrated
that if firms are founded by pronounced scientist having strong publication records then
there is likely chances for commercial partners to be more attracted in the early phase of
drug development ( cited in Sytch, 2008). Therefore, these factors have contributed in the
process of forming strategic alliances.
Since large drugs companies cannot discover the compounds for new drugs as soon as they
lose protection from patent, so they collaborate with biotechnology companies. But there is
always a dilemma here, as most of the time large companies will be seeking for the full
control or authority throughout the development of drug (Abboud; 2005). Their strong
brand name, reputation and abundance resources may lead them to be in a superior role in
relation to the biotech industries. In one hand the large companies have dozens of drugs in
development, so they need to divide their time and resources is equal proportion where as
in the other hand, the biotech company are dependent on a single drug to make their
fortune (Abboud; 2005). This can be also referred in the case of Elli, Lli and Amylin case,
where Amylin did not trusted its partners in the production of injection because of the
Johnson & Johnson split up, where they were terminated from the agreement at the late
stage leaving three hundred employees redundant (Abboud; 2005).
In conclusion, regardless of the fact that Biotech companies lacks in necessary resources and
capabilities the big drug companies are aware that engaging actively in alliance formation
have increased the rate of innovation, product development and commercialization (Sytch;
2008). Nevertheless, these components have increased productivity of the whole medical,
agriculture and industrial sector as a whole.
6. REFERENCES
Abboud, L. 2005, How Eli Lilly's monster deal faced extinction-but survived; as big drug
companies turn to alliances, one venture on diabetes shows perils, Dow Jones & Company,
Inc.
Bratic, W., Blok, J.R. & Gostola, M.M. 2014, "Valuation of early-stage companies in the
biotechnology industry", Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 51-58.
Festel, G. & Rittershaus, P. 2014, "Fostering technology transfer in industrial biotechnology
by academic spin-offs", Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, vol.20, no. 2.
Friedman, Y. 2014, "Building biotechnology in India--drugs are not the answer", Journal of
Commercial Biotechnology, vol. 20, no. 2, pp . 3.
Hamilton, D.P. 2005, How Genentech, Novartis, stifled a promising drug; biotech firm tried
to pursue peanut-allergy injection, but contract got in way, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Karamanos, A.G. 2012, "Leveraging micro‐ and macro‐structures of embeddedness in
alliance networks for exploratory innovation in biotechnology", R&D Management, vol. 42,
no. 1, pp. 71-89.
Kruse, S., Slomiany, M., Bitar, R., Jeffers, S. & Hassan, M. 2014, "Pharmaceutical R&D
productivity: The role of alliances", Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, vol. 20, no. 2, pp.
11-20.
Ranada, V., (2008) Early-Stage Valuation in the Biotechnology Industry, Asia-Pacific Research
Center, pp.9-12
Schilling, M. A., (2013) Strategic Management of Technological Innovation, 4th Ed., New
York :McGraw-Hill
Standing, S., Standing, C. & Lin, C. 2008, "A framework for managing knowledge in strategic
alliances in the biotechnology sector", Systems Research and Behavioral Science, vol. 25, no.
6, pp. 783-796.
7. Sytch, M. and Bubenzer, P., (2008) Research on strategic alliances in biotechnology: an
assessment and review, Handbook of Bioentrepreneurship, pp.105-131
www.bio.org/ (2015), What is Biotechnology?, Available at:
http://www.bio.org/articles/what-biotechnology, [Accessed on 20 Dec 2015]