Building an Oncology Franchise: Lessons from the...
Transcript of Building an Oncology Franchise: Lessons from the...
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 1
© Defined Health, 2006
Building an Oncology Franchise: Lessons from the Past, View of the Present, and Speculation on the Future
June 6, 2006Jeffrey M. Bockman, PhD
Vice President, Defined Health
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 2
© Defined Health, 2006
The information in this report has been obtained from what are believed to be reliable sources and has been verified whenever possible. Nevertheless, we cannot guarantee the information contained herein as to accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are the responsibility of Defined Health, and though current as of the date of this report, are subject to change.
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 3
© Defined Health, 2006
From Slow Beginnings to Rapid Growth
Commercialization of penicillin Nature Reviews Cancer, January 2005
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 5
© Defined Health, 2006
Targeted Cytostatics Drive Growth
*excludes interferon sales
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
2005 2010
CytotoxicsCytostaticsImmunomodulators
Estimate Worldwide Market for Oncology Drugs ($MM)
Cytotoxics: Standard chemotherapeutics (i.e. Microtubule-targeting, DNA-targeting, DNA replication & antimetabolites), novel chemotherapies (i.e. HSP, KSP inhibitors, and aurora kinase inhibitors), and hormonal agents
Cytostatics:: Includes monoclonal antibodies, small molecule TKIs, multi-kinase inhibitors, but excludes blood cell factors.
Immunomodulators:: Revlimid and Cancer Vaccines
9% CAGR
27% CAGR
39 % CAGR
EvaluatePharma®, Defined Health analysis
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 6
© Defined Health, 2006
Therapeutic Oncology – Significant Growth
EvaluatePharma®, Defined Health analysis
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 7
© Defined Health, 2006
Cancer Market – Projections for 2010
EvaluatePharma®
Ranked #4 Out of Top 100 WW Drugs
Celgene1.5Revlimid
Lilly1.4Alimta
AstraZeneca1.4Arimidex
Genentech/Roche1.3Tarceva
Novartis1.3Femara
Lilly1.7Gemzar
Roche1.32Xeloda
Genentech/Roche7.6Avastin
AstraZeneca1.1Zoladex
BMS/Merck KGAa2.0Erbitux
sanofi-aventis2.4Taxotere
sanofi-aventis2.5Eloxatin
J&J2.5Procrit
Amgen2.9Epogen
Novartis3.7Gleevec
Amgen3.9Neulasta
Genentech/Roche4.0Herceptin
Amgen5.2Aranesp
Genentech/Roche5.5Rituxan
CompanyWW Sales ($B)Drug Name
15 Therapeutic Oncology Drugs
4 Supportive Drugs
Cautionary Note: Only one new player in this list of blockbusters in 2010.
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 8
© Defined Health, 2006
Where Is the Growth
Others, 18%
Others, 29%Takeda, 2%
Takeda, 1%
Schering-Plough, 3%
Schering-Plough, 2%
BMS, 4%
BMS, 7%
Pfizer, 5%
Pfizer, 4%
Eli Lilly, 6%
Eli Lilly, 5%Novartis, 9%
Novartis, 9%Roche, 11%
Roche, 13%AstraZeneca, 13%
AstraZeneca, 6%
Genentech, 13%Genentech, 17%
Sanofi-Aventis, 14%Sanofi-Aventis, 8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 2010
Mar
ket S
hare
Key Players in Global Oncology Market, 2005 & 2010(excludes supportive oncology)
Source: EvaluatePharma
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 9
© Defined Health, 2006
Future Trends in Therapy
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 10
© Defined Health, 2006
MOAs – Expanding, Overlapping
Making decisions about the best targets is difficult, given the large number of them.
Cell, January, 2000
Any given target is expanding into multiple, interconnected targets
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 11
© Defined Health, 2006
Future of Anticancer Therapy
Conventional Chemotherapy
Conventional Chemotherapy
TargetedTherapy
TargetedTherapy
Cancer Early Advanced
MolecularDiagnostics Molecular
Diagnostics
2005 2010
Cancer Early AdvancedAdvancedConventionalChemotherapy
TargetedTherapy
CombinationAdvancedCombination
ConventionalChemotherapy
TargetedTherapy
Targeted Therapy A
Targeted Therapy B
2 TargetedAgents
Defined Health analysis
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 12
© Defined Health, 2006
Anticancer Therapy Evolutionary Timeline
1990s 2000s 2010
Conventional Chemotherapy – Cytotoxics• Platinums• Taxanes• Topoisomerase
inhibitors• Alkylating agents
1st Generation Targeted
(ERBB, VEGF):• Herceptin• Gleevec• Erbitux• Iressa, Tarceva• Rituxan• Avastin
Multi-Targeted (kinases):
• Sunitinib• Sorafenib• Lapatinib• Combinations of
targeted agents (e.g., Anti-EGF plus Avastin)
1980sNovel Targetscytotoxic, cytostatic• Histone
deacetylaseinhibitors
• Heat shock protein inhibitors
• mTOR/Aktinhibitors
• Aurora kinase/Polo kinase inhibitors
Defined Health Analysis
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 13
© Defined Health, 2006
Targeted vs. Multi-targeted
• The trend continues towards multi-targeted agents hitting either several targets within a single MOA buckets (e.g., angiogenesis or cell growth) or hitting combinations of targets across several buckets:
– Sutent, Nexavar, Tykerb, etc...
Adis R&D Insight, Defined Health analysis
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 14
© Defined Health, 2006
Targeted vs. Multi-targeted
• But while smallmolecules, especially multi-targeted ones, constitute a majority of the drugs in the Phase I and higher pipeline for many tumors, largemolecules—including antibodies, oligonucleotides and vaccine approaches-lag behind, despite the significant contribution to sales in the category of the antibodies.
Adis R&D Insight, Defined Health analysis
NSCLC, Phase I and higher
SmallLarge
CRC, Phase I and higher
SmallLarge
BC, Phase I and higher
SmallLarge
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 15
© Defined Health, 2006
“Hit Hard, Hit Early” vs. “Sequential & Reserve”
• Oncologists are split between two related approaches to therapy:– Hit hard, hit early: does one use these agents together with current regimens to
suppress the tumor as quickly and completely as possible, or in doing so does one set up a situation for creating escape mutants, in which case one should reserve some of these for later lines of therapy (second through salvage). This is being debated hotly around use of the follow-ons developed for Gleevec-resistant mutants: should they be used instead of Gleevec, with Gleevec, or post Gleevec failures?
– Hit multiple pathways versus complete shutdown of a pathway: These are not mutually exclusive but some oncologists think combining TKIs and anti-receptor antibodies is a good idea, in which case one could add a SSKI to Erbitux or Avastin, others are more skeptical and would envision wanting to add oncompletely novel MOAs (Avastin plus HDAC inhibitor, for example).
Defined Health analysis
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 16
© Defined Health, 2006
Shutdown Single Pathway vs. Multiple Pathways
• Defined Health’s research suggests that while it would seem to be obvious to hit multiple pathways, given the heterogeneity and genetic instability of cancer cells, some oncologists favor shutting down a pathway completely over partially shutting down several pathways.
– For example: combining antibodies and TKIs to completely block cell growth signals through EGF.
– In this context, there is some relevance to the management of HIV, where multiple agents within a class and several classes are used to control the viral replication.
Defined Health analysis
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 17
© Defined Health, 2006
“Hit Hard, Hit Early” vs. “Sequential & Reserve”
• This is exemplified by the debate among hematologist oncologists regarding management of CML: On a theoretical level (that is, within the broader question of how to treat human cancer), there is disagreement as to whether combination therapy of Gleevec plus an agent hitting the Gleevec-resistant mutations or monotherapy with a more potent agent that hits wild type bcr-abl and the various mutations represents a logical first line approach. While many physicians believe that aggressive first line therapy makes sense since it theoretically can induce a long-lasting remission or perhaps eradicate disease, some believe that such an approach will only induce multi-drug resistant clones more rapidly.
– Clearly, as for HIV, clinical data will be needed to decide between these competing views.
Defined Health analysis
Sprycel (dasatinib), Nilotinib (AMN107)
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 18
© Defined Health, 2006
Pipeline Activity – Phase I and Higher
MBC
CRC
HRPC
NSCLC
Adis R&D Insight, Defined Health analysis
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 19
© Defined Health, 2006
The New Chemotherapies
• Chemotherapies represent some one-quarter to nearly fifty percent of the pipeline, depending on tumor type. These represent next generation agents such as oral taxanes and platinums with distinct activity profiles, reformulated generics that might have improved tolerability if not efficacy (e.g., Abraxane), but also novel classes that are cytotoxic (at least under certain conditions) including such targets as cell cycle inhibitors and proapoptotic agents.
Adis R&D Insight, Defined Health analysis
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 20
© Defined Health, 2006
Early Pipeline – Key to the Future
Adis R&D Insight, Defined Health analysis
Phase I, WW
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 21
© Defined Health, 2006
Anti-CancerMOA’s –
Major Buckets
Anti-metabolites
Signal Transduction - Master Switches
Immunological Targets
Other InterestingMechanisms
Epigenetic Agents
Hormone Therapy Transcriptional
Regulation
Microtubule / Cytoskeletal
Inhibitors
Cell Cycling
DNA Targeting Agents
Cell and Gene Therapies
Other signal transduction
pathwaysPro-Apoptotic Mechanisms
Angiogenesis, cellular
Trafficking, Tumor Invasion
Growth Factor Receptors
Essential MOA Buckets
IDdb, Adis R&D Insight
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 22
© Defined Health, 2006
Major Pharma Has a Diversified Approach
Key Clinical MOA “buckets”
Chemotherapy/cytotoxics
Angiogenesis/tumor invasion/metastases
Cell cycle
Hormone
Immune approaches (e.g., vaccines)
Intracellular signaling/growth factors
Epigenetic targets
Apoptosis
Targeted cell surface (e.g., antibodies with cytotoxic payloads)
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 23
© Defined Health, 2006
Major Pharma Has a Diversified Approach
IDdb, Adis R&D Insight
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 24
© Defined Health, 2006
Major Pharma Has a Diversified Approach
PharmaProjects, Recap
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 25
© Defined Health, 2006
The Consequences of Complexity
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 26
© Defined Health, 2006
And Yet, Despite Incredible Advances…
Dr. Emily Chan, Treatment of Colorectal Cancer, VICCAN’s Spring Scientific Conference, April 29, 2006
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 27
© Defined Health, 2006
Attrition Rates for Oncology Compounds
Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, Volume 3, August 2004, 711
Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, August 2003
Ratio of Phase II/registration to Phase I/II success rates
Deepest Valley of DeathNext Worse Overall Success Rate
Worst Model & early Trial Success Correlations
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 28
© Defined Health, 2006
Don’t Be Fooled by Mechanistic Knowledge
IFL IFL+ BV Hazard RatioResponders 10.6 14.0 0.53 Non-Responders 4.4 7.0 0.63
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 10 20 30Progression-Free Survival, mo
IFL/Placebo (OR)IFL/BV (OR)IFL/Placebo (NOR)IFL/BV (NOR)
• Patients who did not demonstrate an objective response to therapy still achieved a PFS prolongation of 60% compared to chemo alone.
AVF 2107: CLINICAL BENEFIT IS SEEN IN BOTH NON-RESPONDING…..
Slide courtesy of Dr. Brain Leyland-Jones
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 29
© Defined Health, 2006
Deal-Making in Oncology
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 30
© Defined Health, 2006
Deal-making: Trends – 2005-Present
• At least twelve of the deals out of some 33 among major biotech and drug companies over the past year and half have
been for antibodies.
• Targets of interest include apoptosis, and many kinasesincluding PI3K, Akt, and MAPK.
• There have been only a few cytotoxic deals (e.g., Abraxane).
Recap
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 31
© Defined Health, 2006
Oncology Transactions
Medtrack, D&A Database
* Other encompasses four other major therapeutic areas** Includes all deal types, irrespective of stage of development
Proportion of deals over the last 5-years by the top 20 pharmaceutical companies (based on2004 revenue). In addition, included are deals from six other Big Biotech and Big Pharma companies.
Breakdown of Deal MakingOncology
25%
CV8%
CNS20%
Infection14%
Auto8%
Other25%
Fifteen of the Twenty Largest Pharma Companies Have Extensive Oncology Development Programs & Oncology Leads in Deal Making
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 32
© Defined Health, 2006
2825 21
20
9
12
4
4
4
514
24
66
214
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2003 2004 2005 2006
Pre-clinical Phase I Phase II Phase III Filed
Comparing Early, Middle and Late-stage Oncology Deal Making(Sample Size = 73 deals)
2006 product deals projected out based on assumption that deal making activity in second half of year equals first half of year. For three of the past four years, early stage (Pre-clinical-Phase I) deals ranged from 70-80% of all deal making activity. Phase II deal making has fluctuated over the past few years and has shown no consistent trend. While Phase III deal making appears to reflect 10% of deal making between 2003-2005, the number of Phase III deals in 2006 appear to be on a downward trend, assuming our assumption for second half '06 holds true.
EvaluatePharma, Defined Health analysis
Trends in Oncology Deal Activity
Extrapolated deals to year end
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 33
© Defined Health, 2006
1317 18
55 6
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2003 2004 2005
Phase IIIPhase I/II
Comparing Phase I/II Oncology Deals vs Phase III Deals(Sample Size = 73 deals)
EvaluatePharma, Defined Health analysis
Trends in Oncology Deal Activity
Extrapolated deals to year end
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 34
© Defined Health, 2006
Recent Oncology Deal Activity
Promume for cancers$10.0$515.0Col,D,L3/05Pfizer / Coley Pharmaceutical Group
Cancer Vaccine Targeting Telomerase$18.0$21.5CoP,Col,E,L,O,R,W7/05Merck / Geron
ADH-1(Exherin) and Eniluracil for cancer$3.0$223.0D,E,L,O7/05GlaxoSmithKline / Adherex Technologies
Antibody-Drug Donjugates Directed against the PR1 Antigen
Sub6/05Genentech / PDL BioPharma
In-license MKC-1 for Lung CancerL5/05Roche / MiikanaTherapeutics
Small molecule modulators for cell proliferation$149.0Col,D,L4/05Genentech / Curis
Acquisition of Idun$298.0Acq2/05Pfizer / IdunPharmaceuticals
PTK787 Oral Angiogenesis InhibitorCoP,Col,D,L1/05Novartis / Schering AG
mAbs against EXEL Protein Targets$16.0Col,D,L6/05Genentech / Exelixis
Small Molecule Inhibitors for Protein Kinase B (Akt)$275.0CoP,Col,D,L,O7/05AstraZeneca / AstexTherapeutics
UltiMab for antibodies targeting cancer and inflammatory disease
D,L6/05Boehringer Ingelheim / Medarex
SubjectRoy.EquitySizeTypeDateParties
Recombinant Capital
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 35
© Defined Health, 2006
Recent Oncology Deal Activity
Matuzumab (EMD 72000) for cancer$72.2CoD,CoP,Col,L9/05Takeda / Merck KGaA
Acquisition for Cash including antibody products to CD19, CD20 and CD22
$158.0Acq9/05MedImmune / CellectiveTherapeutics
Inhibition of DNA repair$210Acq.12/05AstraZeneca/KuDOS
Novel cell-cycle inhibitors for Cancer Treatment$520.0D,E,L,O,R12/05Novartis / AstexTherapeutics
Therapeutic tumor vaccineL12/05GlaxoSmithKline / Medigene
PI 3-kinase Cancer Drug Development$230.0Col,D,11/05Genentech / PIramed
AGS-PSCA Antibody for Cancer Therapy$199.0CoD,L10/05Merck / Agensys
TOCOSOL(R) Paclitaxel anti-cancer productD,E,L10/05Schering AG / SonusPharmaceuticals
Daclizumab, M200 and HuZAF™50%$100.0$800.0CoD,CoP,Col,L9/05Biogen IDEC / PDL BioPharma
dAb Therapeutics for Immunology &Oncology$29.2Col,D,L12/05Bristol-Myers Squibb / Domantis
Maytansinoid TAP Technology for undisclosed targetL12/05Genentech / ImmunoGen
SubjectRoy.EquitySizeTypeDateParties
Recombinant Capital
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 36
© Defined Health, 2006
Recent Oncology Deal Activity
BLP25 Liposome Vaccine for small cell lung cancerD,LoI,L1/06Merck KGaA / Biomira
Mitotic Kinesin Eg5 Inhibitor anti-tumor agents ex. JapanD,L1/06Lilly / Kyowa Hakko Kogyo
Antibody protein targets for cancer treatmentL1/06ImClone Systems / Caprion Pharmaceuticals
Folate-Targeted Chemotherapeutic AgentsCol,L1/06Bristol-Myers Squibb / Endocyte
Novel therapeutic antibodies for cancerCoD,L,O,R2/06Schering AG / Vaccinex
BCR-ABL Inhibitors for Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia$515.0D,E,L,O3/06Novartis / SGX Pharmaceuticals
Anti-cancer antibodiesL3/06Genentech / ARIUS Research
Bcl-2 Family Inhibitors for cancer$400.0Col,D,E,L,O,R3/06Novartis / Infinity Pharmaceuticals
Therapeutic Antibody Collaboration for cancerCol,D,L,R3/06Roche / MorphoSys
Acquisition for cash$250.0Acq5/06Biogen IDEC / ConformaTherapeutics
MAPK/ ERK kinase compoundCoP,L4/06GlaxoSmithKline / Japan Tobacco
SubjectRoy.EquitySizeTypeDateParties
Recombinant Capital
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 37
© Defined Health, 2006
Portfolios, Franchises and the Idiosyncrasies of Risk-Reward
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 38
© Defined Health, 2006
Cancer Companies – Market Caps & Pipelines
223 2,230 10Phase III only
442 2,649 6Phase III & I
285 2,561 9Phase III & II
5,574 161,644 29Phase I, II, III
Avg. Market Capitalization ($mln)
Aggregate Market Capitalization ($mln)
# Publicly Traded CompaniesPortfolio Mix
MedTRACK, Defined Health analysis
For purposes of this analysis, we excluded big pharma, specialty pharma and Japanese pharmaceutical companies.
Balanced
RISK
Exposed
Fear+Hope
Fallback
2004 Analysis
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 39
© Defined Health, 2006
Cancer Companies – Market Caps & Pipelines
MedTRACK, Defined Health analysis
Balanced
RISK
Exposed
Fear+Hope
Fallback
For purposes of this analysis, we excluded big pharma and big biotech, specialty pharma and Japanese pharmaceutical companies.
223 2,230 10Phase III only
442 2,649 6Phase III & I
285 2,561 9Phase III & II
806 20,957 26Phase I, II, III
Avg. Market Capitalization ($mln)
Aggregate Market Capitalization ($mln)
# Publicly Traded
CompaniesPortfolio Mix
2004 Analysis
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 40
© Defined Health, 2006
Cancer Companies – Market Caps & Pipelines
For purposes of this analysis, we excluded big pharma and big biotech, specialty pharma, Japanese pharmaceutical companies, and revenue-generating companies.
Biotech Companies not included: Millennium, Imclone, Celgene, United Therapeutics, Ligand, Intermune, Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Biogen-Idec, Genentech, Amgen, Serono, Cell Therapeutics
208 1,876 9Phase III only
325 1,627 5Phase III & I
285 2,561 9Phase III & II
418 8,357 20Phase I, II, III
Avg. Market Capitalization ($mln)
Aggregate Market Capitalization ($mln)
# Publicly Traded CompaniesPortfolio Mix Balanced
RISK
Exposed
Fear+Hope
Fallback
MedTRACK, Defined Health analysis
2004 Analysis
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 41
© Defined Health, 2006
Market Caps & Pipelines – Rationale, Variable?
May 2006 Criteria:<$50M in 2005 Revenue (all sources)67% of R&D projects in Oncology
Initial Criteria 2005: <$100M in 2005 Revenue (all sources)50% of R&D projects in Oncology
Dec 2005 and May 2006 Analyses
Evaluate Pharma, Defined Health analysis
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 42
© Defined Health, 2006
Market Caps & Pipelines – Rationale, Variable?Dec 2005 and May 2006 Analyses
Evaluate Pharma, Defined Health analysis
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 43
© Defined Health, 2006
Market Caps & Pipelines – Rationale, Variable?
Evaluate Pharma, Defined Health analysis
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 44
© Defined Health, 2006
Compound Values: Oncology Still Holds a Premium
Value Per Compound (For “Pure Play” Oncology and CNS companies)
Risk-adjusted number of compounds
Evaluate Pharma, Defined Health analysis
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 45
© Defined Health, 2006
Franchise Building - Merck
Merck
Rigel– (Nov. 2004)•Investigate ubiquitin ligasesto find treatments for cancer
•Rigel to receive initial cash payment and funding for Rigel
research scientists for 2.5 years
Pierre Fabre Medicament (August 2004)•License for antibody in preclinical development, which targets insulin like
growth factor (IGF-1)•Financial terms not
disclosedVertex– (June 2004)•Collaboration -- VX-680, Vertex's
lead Aurora kinase inhibitor•$20 million up-front payment;
$14M R&D funding; $130M milestone for successful
development in first oncology indication; $220M follow-on or
development in other indications
Aton Pharma (Feb. 2004)•Acquisition of oncology
focused Biotech•Target’s pipeline includes
HDAC inhibitors; lead product candidate in phase
II•Financial terms not
disclosed
Recap
Agensys (October 2005)•PSCA antibody for prostate,
pancreatic and bladder cancers•Global alliance to jointly
develop and commercialize AGS-PSCA, Agensys' fully
human monoclonal antibody (MAb) to Prostate Stem Cell
Antigen (PSCA)•$199M
Geron– (July 2005)•Jointly potential vaccine against
telomerase using Merck's platform.
•Geron will continue development of its dendritic cell-based vaccine
product, which is currently in Phase I/II clinical trials and is the
subject of the exclusive option obtained by Merck
•$21.5M upfront, $18M equity
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 46
© Defined Health, 2006
Franchise Building - Cephalon
Cephalon
Salmedix (May 2005)•Acquisition of Salmedix,
$160M plus $40M for certain regulatory milestones.
•Salmedix's most advanced product, Treanda(TM)
(bendamustine hydrochloride), is in Phase II trials for the
treatment of indolent (slowly progressing) non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma (NHL).
Zeneus– (Dec 2005)•Acquisition of Zeneus Holdings for
~$360 million in cash. •Accelerate Cephalon's entry into European oncology market with
commercialized products, including Myocet(R) (liposomal doxorubicin), a cardio-protective chemotherapy
agent used to treat late-stage breast cancer; & Targretin(R)
(bexarotene), a treatment for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma
Cell Therapeutics (June 2005)
•Acquisition of Trisenox•$70 million cash. The agreement provides for future cash payments to CTI, totaling up to $100
million, upon the achievement of certain
label expansions and sales milestones.
Recap
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 47
© Defined Health, 2006
Franchise Building - Exelixis
ExelixisVery productive
internal discovery platform Symphony
(May 2005)•Up to $80 million for clinical
development of XL647, XL999 and XL784.
•Exelixis has granted a license to the intellectual property for the three
compounds to Symphony Evolution, but retains the exclusive right, through
a purchase option, to acquire Symphony Evolution's equity. If
Exelixis chooses not to exercise the purchase option, Symphony Evolution will retain the rights to the compounds.
As part of its collaboration with Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline plc (GSK)
has previously agreed to increase the selection milestone payments for
compounds that are funded through Symphony Evolution.
Genentech– (June 2005)•Collaboration agreement with
Genentech for the discovery and development of therapeutics to
target cancer, inflammatory diseases, and tissue growth and
repair. •$16M upfront
GSK (October 2002)
•Upfront payment of $30 million to Exelixis. GSK acquired two million
newly issued shares of Exelixiscommon stock at approximately $7 per share, which represents a premium of
100% to the current stock price. Over the initial six years of the
agreement, GSK will provide Exelixiswith a minimum of $90 million in
development funding. Exelixis will receive clinical and regulatory milestone
payments. These payments could range from $220 million to $350 million
up to and including first commercialization.
•$35M in milestones in May 2005
Recap
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 48
© Defined Health, 2006
Franchises In Oncology• Except for Genentech, no
company appears more than twice in the 2010 consensus analyst blockbuster list of billion dollar plus therapeuticoncology drugs.
Celgene1.5Revlimid
Lilly1.4Alimta
AstraZeneca1.4Arimidex
Genentech/Roche1.3Tarceva
Novartis1.3Femara
Lilly1.7Gemzar
Roche*1.32Xeloda
Genentech/Roche7.6Avastin
AstraZeneca1.1Zoladex
BMS/Merck KGAa2.0Erbitux
sanofi-aventis2.4Taxotere
sanofi-aventis2.5Eloxatin
J&J2.5Procrit
Amgen2.9Epogen
Novartis3.7Gleevec
Amgen3.9Neulasta
Genentech/Roche4.0Herceptin
Amgen5.2Aranesp
Genentech/Roche5.5Rituxan
CompanyWW Sales ($B)Drug Name
Evaluate Pharma
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 49
© Defined Health, 2006
Distribution of Past and Projected Peak SalesPeak sales by type of product - Products launched as of 2004 - Data from 1986 to 2009.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0-10
0
100-
200
200-
300
300-
400
400-
500
500-
600
600-
700
700-
800
800-
900
900-
1000
Mor
e th
an 1
000
Peak sales in $m
# of
pro
duct
s
Organic
External
Evaluate Pharma, Defined Health analysis
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 50
© Defined Health, 2006
Final Thoughts, Questions Remaining
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 51
© Defined Health, 2006
The Oft Asked Question: Is Cancer Different?
• One of the few, if not only, therapeutic categories that will experience not simply incremental growth but exponential, innovative growth in the next ten years.
• A category in which to date a limited number of drugs have obtained significant blockbuster status (therapeutic oncology) compared to many other TAs.
• A therapeutic category in which significant clinical benefit has been made but in which the standard of care remains suboptimal in nearly all settings.
• Oncology is perhaps unique in having the most detailed molecular data available and yet still having only incremental insight into the proper usage of regimens containing available and development stage agents.
• Oncology is one of the most difficult categories for design of clinical trials and endpoints.
• One of the therapeutic categories with the highest clinical development stage risk (failure rates at Phase II and Phase III).
• Cancer will therefore be one of the leading categories to be impacted by pharmacogenomics/personalized medicine.
• Oncology is a key area where portfolio diversity has never really been translated into commensurate commercial value and yet the potential for franchise synergies is enormous (with some notable exceptions, such as Genentech).
• Cancer is where everyone, large and small companies alike, biotech, pharma and specialty, want to play.
Therapeutic Alliances Series – OncologyJune 6, 2006 - Pg. 52
© Defined Health, 2006
Questions/Issues Going Forward
• Some questions just don’t reduce to a simplistic formula, like those pertaining to partnering and diversifying a portfolio:
– What?– When?– How?– How much?
• But this much is certain: – Be open, be creative, be proactive, be informed– And, while a level of passion and commitment to the programs are essential to
move them forward in a small company, don’t drink the: