M&A Predictions! Fortune Tellers -- They Are Not

Even though the New Year has come and gone, analysts are still making their predictions about what 2011 will bring for the pharma and biotech industries. (Admittedly, it is still early enough to do so, but March would have been pushing it.)

The latest endeavor to predict the future comes from the fine analysts at Morningstar, who released their “2011 M&A Outlook for Healthcare” report this week. The report includes some sound, albeit a little obvious, deductions on what will be moving M&A in 2011 – a move into emerging markets, slowing R&D productivity, and (cue ominous music) the upcoming patent cliff.

Morningstar experts expect further consolidation in Big Pharma; and say Eli Lilly & Co., as well as Bristol-Myers Squibb will be ripe for the picking as the patents on their lead drugs reach their expiration date – but, honestly, who would buy them?

Merck & Co. (Schering-Plough), Pfizer Inc. (Wyeth), Roche (Genentech), and Novartis (Alcon)have all made major acquisitions in the past two years that have added significantly to their debt situations and are unlikely to dump the burden of a major restructuring on top of the issues they’ve already had to bear while trying to make these puzzle pieces fit.

Morningstar analyst Damien Conover suggests Abbott Laboratories could handle acquiring either Lilly or Bristol. He also thinks Sanofi-Aventis and GlaxoSmithKline could benefit from an acquisition of Bristol as well. This sounds all well and good, but Glaxo has made it pretty clear that it is not interested in any large acquisitions and Sanofi has its hands full already with that little Genzyme deal it has been drawing out for months. And let’s be honest, if the past has taught us anything, it’s that bigger is not always better.

So moving on to more realistic prospects for mash-ups in 2011 – let’s take a look at what biotechs Morningstar thinks will offer the best bang for the buck.

They list Biogen-Idec, Seattle Genetics, Human Genome Sciences, Dendreon, and Actelion as their top five take-out targets this year. The reasoning is complex but the basic insight is that these companies have strong pipelines or technology in really HOT therapeutic areas like neurology, orphan drugs, and cancer. Yet, Biogen, Celgene, Gilead, and Merck KGaA will offer an acquirer the most immediate and gratifying (think mid-to single-digit billions) boost to earnings – something every Big Pharma could use right now. These companies also have the nice bonus of having a lot of cash on hand and fairly low burn rates.

While all of these companies have their positives and negatives, it’s important to keep in mind that just because they can be acquired doesn’t mean that they will be. Take the #1 takeout target this year for example, Biogen; it’s been on Morningstar’s take-out list for three years now despite plenty attempts by billionaire shareholder Carl Icahn to get the company on the market.

That said; Morningstar hasn’t done abysmally in its predictions over the last two years. Three companies from the 2009 list were acquired – Trubion, CV Therapeutics, and Medarex, but none of these companies were in the top 15 that year. Another seven got picked up from its 2010 list – Crucell, ZymoGenetics, Talecris, King Pharmaceuticals, OSI Pharmaceuticals, Biovail and Genzyme – with three of these companies being in their top 15 picks.

So what do you think – will this be Biogen’s year to find a suitor or will the Massachusetts biotech continue to dance alone?

Image from flickr user What Makes The Pie Shops Tick? used under a creative commons license

DotW: Open Your Mind

To the possibilities...

The week started off on a positive note with the interesting news that AstraZeneca and Merck had come together to conduct a clinical trial combining their two promising but early stage oncology assets. Can you imagine? Two pharmaceutical companies actually pooling assets (see below).

While we are more interested about what potentially could come next--will this lead to future pipeline sharing deals, for instance?--we admit to being impressed by the news, and are almost willing to say that the tie-up counts as one of this year's most interesting deals (the other being the GSK/Pfizer joint-venture in HIV, of course).

Who else opened their minds this week? Shareholders at Biogen Idec seemed swayed by the arguments of "Team Icahn", awarding at least one board seat to the dissident shareholder group. Alex Denner, the managing director of Icahn Partners, will definitely get to participate in regular Biogen Idec confabs. No word yet on whether Richard Mulligan--the other Icahn supporter--has also won a seat at the table. (All we know is someone is taking a Mulligan here.)

Elan investors certainly see the hope of an impending sale after a week that was rife with rumors. First BMS was interested in a minority stake and then they weren't. On Thursday, the Financial Times reported that Pfizer was sniffing around the biotech. It's not the first time the New York behemoth's name has been linked with Elan. Why, pray tell, would Pfizer, still embroiled by the integration of Wyeth, want to purchase the company? Maybe it likes the data associated with Elan's Phase III mAB for Alzheimer's disease, bapineuzimab. Thanks to the Wyeth purchase, it already owns a piece of the molecule anyway. If the data are stellar, why not take the risk and own it all? And if they aren't? We assume Pfizer will be on to its next acquisition target by then anyway.

Novavax may open its mind to taking advantage of the uptick in its share price by raising additional money. Investors have swarmed into the biotech, in part because of the company's novel technology to develop a vaccine for the H1N1 flu strain. An agreement with the National Institutes of Health to evaluate a potential vaccine, announced Friday, only added to the excitement.

See? The possibilities are endless when you just open your mind and read...

AstraZeneca/Merck: Does the tie-up announced Monday June 1 between AstraZeneca and Merck to test a combination of two early-stage oncology candidates represent a more enlightened approach to deal-making? It's too soon to tell given the limited nature of this first collaboration, which pairs Merck's MK-2206, an AKT inhibitor, with AZ's mitogen-activated protein kinase 1 blocker, AZD6244 (also known as ARRY-886) in a soon-to-commence Phase I safety and tolerability trial. MK-2206 is currently in Phase I trials as a monotherapy; AZ's '6244 in a bit further along, having completed several Phase II studies. Both represent the most advanced molecules in their respective classes.

The very fact that the tie-up happened at all is proof that the industry is taking an important step forward in how it thinks about building innovative pipelines (though we would have been more impressed if the firms' business development groups had come up with the concept). In what is sure to become one of the most repeated stories on the origin of a partnership, the pact has its roots in a security line in the Dublin airport back in 2007. Somewhere between removing their shoes and coats and placing their laptops on the X-Ray machine, the two scientists got to chatting about how sensible it would be to collaborate given the increasing importance of combination therapy in oncology. Eighteen months later the deal came to fruition, with the blessing of Merck's chief strategy guru Mervyn Turner and AZ's BD ace John Goddard.

The reason so few Big Pharma-Big Pharma development deals get done is that they're very tricky. Issues related to control, valuation, and overlap with other, non-partnered projects must be hammered out before two large companies can come together in even basic ways. Indeed one reason it may have taken so long to forge this seemingly simple pact is that both Merck and AZ are developing competing MEK and AKT inhibitors. With multiple targets in each pathway and the potential to be used to treat a number of different cancers, the possible variations on a deal (it is not as well known as Brahms's famous opus) were "overwhelming", said Merck's Turner.

As a result, the companies are starting slowly, taking a step-wise approach to collaboration that need not go beyond this Phase I program. According to Turner, "We decided, let's start with the easy part, work out how we'll do these experiments together in patients in Phase I, and if that succeeds, we'll go on to the next part," he says. If the eventual goal is some sort of fixed-dose combination, the companies will eventually have to jump in with two feet, perhaps partnering on multiple compounds or even entire pathways.--Christopher Morrison

GlaxoSmithKline/Concert Pharmaceuticals: This deal was heavy, man. Just weeks after announcing it had been granted patents by the USPTO, Concert Pharmaceuticals inked a deal with GlaxoSmithKline on June 2 to gain access to the biotech's deuterated technology. The biobucks were sky-high, but the upfront GlaxoSmithKline agreed to pay was quite down-to-earth: just $35 million, which included $16.7 million for equity that was priced at a similar level to shares Concert issued when raising its $37 million 2008 Series C. In exchange, the big drugmaker gets option rights to multiple Concert projects, including CTP-518, a deuterated version of Bristol Myers-Squibb's HIV protease inhibitor atazanavir that is scheduled to enter Phase I trials later in 2009.

Like most of GSK's previous option-deals, the Big Pharma can buy into a program at clinical proof-of-concept (generally post Phase IIa but in the case of '518 post Phase I). Concert will also create deuterated versions of three additional molecules for GSK, and hand those off after lead optimization. The deal's milestones total more than $1 billion and are heavily weighted to the three option candidates, says Concert's chief business officer Steve Bernitz. What's more, the majority of the payments are for clinical and regulatory accomplishment, as opposed to sales-based payments. Concert will get a double digit royalty on compounds from its pipeline and an undisclosed royalty on deuterium-containing molecules from GSK's pipeline.

Replacing hydrogen atoms with deuterium atoms (hydrogen atoms saddled with a neutron) may be the ultimate in life cycle management since it allows for the creation of new chemical entities that get around existing composition-of-matter IP. And it's a low risk approach to drug development, since "it does not change the physical characteristics of a drug," president and CEO Roger Tung, PhD, told IN VIVO Blog. Because deuterium forms stronger bonds with other atoms in comparison with hydrogen due to its greater mass, Tung believes deuterated versions of medicines are likely to be metabolized differently, an important fact that can potentially affect safety, tolerability--and potentially efficacy. While this has yet to be proven in the clinic, it could mean that certain "problem" drugs might be salvaged by the substitution of deuteriums for hydrogen.

Interestingly, given the importance of '518 to the deal, one might have assumed that Bristol Myers-Squibb was interested. Tung confirms that Concert talked to BMS prior to inking the pact with GSK, but it's unclear whether BMS was ever in the running for the compound. BMS's version of atazanavir, Reyataz, remains on patent and will likely still be protected by the time Concert's '518 hits the market.--Christopher Morrison

OrthoBiotech (Johnson & Johnson)/National Cancer Institute: Topping off a busy day Thursday in which the diversified drug maker touted its robust late stage pipeline, Johnson & Johnson's OrthoBiotech division announced a five-year cooperative research and development pact (otherwise known as a CRADA) with the National Cancer Institute. As NCI's involvement implies, the pact is focused on developing novel cellular immunotherapies as potential treatments for a variety of cancers including melanoma. Steven Rosenberg, who is chief of NCI's surgery branch, will help lead the research effort.

The deal is interesting on a number of levels. It continues to show J&J's commitment to doing deals with a wide variety of players, from consortia to academic collaborators to industry groups. As "The Pink Sheet" DAILY notes, this external focus mirrors an industry-wide trend. (Recall GSK's efforts to biotech itself and Lilly and Merck's FIPNet strategies.) J&J's worldwide chairman for pharmaceuticals Sheila McCoy echoed this sentiment in her comments at the drug maker's R&D confab, noting such deals "allow you to diversify. The trend is to look at consortia in certain areas... [There's] a lot of discussion about how to share capabilities." In January , J&J's Janssen unit announced a deal with Vanderbilt University; in March, Centocor signed a deal with the University of Michigan.

Diversity in terms of both molecules and therapeutic approaches is important, but so is curbing risk. And what could be more risky--the apparent success of Provenge notwithstanding--than cancer immunotherapy? NCI's Rosenberg is a pioneer in the field, working in recent years to develop technologies to alter a patient's T cells to express specific immunity against cancer cells. Despite the controversy surrounding the space, OrthoBiotech has also dabbled in cancer immunotherapy, developing an approach designed to stimulate a patient's immune system to recognize and attack cancer cells via the administration of tumor antigens and other materials. Now Rosenberg's lab will conduct a clinical trial in melanoma patients using OrthoBiotech's proprietary technology.

"This public-private partnership represents an extraordinary opportunity to bring together complementary and substantial expertise and resources from two groups with the common goal of advancing a highly promising new modality of therapy for patients with cancer," said Jay Siegel, chief biotechnology officer of J&J's Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices and Diagnostics businesses.

Microsoft/Merck: Ever since Merck announced in October 2008 the closure of Rosetta Inpharmatics, a genomic-information software company it purchased in 2001 for $576 million, execs have speculated about the ultimate fate of the bio-IT group's assets. Speculation only increased in February after Stephen Friend, Rosetta's founder and one of the prime defenders of these kinds of tools, announced he was leaving Merck to found Sage, a new, not-for-profit, open-source initiative that will develop biological networks across tissues and organs that model disease. (For more see this March START-UP story and this April IN VIVO piece. )

Now we know. On June 1, Microsoft announced it was buying "certain assets"--code for some but not all of Rosetta's powerful software. According to genomeweb's BioInform, the deal centers around Rosetta's Resolver, Elucidator, and Syllego programs, although financial details of the deal were not disclosed.

Why are we covering it? Because the deal marks an important step forward in Microsoft's quest to play in the life sciences. And Microsoft is big enough and creative enough (notwithstanding the ludicrous decision to saddle its new search engine with the unfortunate acronym But It's Not Google) that it must be taken seriously. Microsoft plans to incorporate the genetic and genomic data-management software into Microsoft Amalga Life Sciences, which helps research organizations assemble data from disparate platforms that can be located internally or externally. Merck will remain a contributor as well. According to the WSJ, Merck will provide strategic input regarding the program's use and will become an Amalga customer.

AstraZeneca/Abbott: On June 4, AstraZeneca and Abbott announced a co-promotion agreement for their investigational Crestor/TriLipix compound, as well as their submission of a new drug application with the FDA for the product in mixed dyslipidemia (basically a combination of two or more lipid abnormalities including high LDL-cholesterol, high triglycerides and low HDL-cholesterol.)

The co-promotion extends the two drug makers' existing commercial relationship--the original deal was inked in 2006--ahead of an FDA decision on the combo product, which will be marketed as Certriad if approved. TriLipix, a delayed-release fenofibrate approved in December 2008, is Abbott's play to build on the success of the older fenofibrate brand TriCor.

As "The Pink Sheet" DAILY writes, Certriad is an important product for both Big Pharmas, but especially Abbott given that TriCor will face generic competition in just two years. As part of the agreement, AstraZeneca gains non-exclusive rights to sell TriLipix alongside Abbott in the U.S., excluding Puerto Rico. Abbott agreed to co-promote AstraZeneca's Crestor under similar terms last August.

The American Heart Association estimates that about 34 million people in the U.S. are affected by mixed dyslipidemia. But despite this huge opportunity, the drug will face an increasingly competitive market for similar fixed-dose combination CV products. For example, Daiichi Sankyo is developing a triple combination product combining its antihypertensive Azor with hydrochlorothiazide, and Merck and Schering-Plough have a combination of Zetia and Pfizer's Lipitor in development.

(Image courtesy flickrer mythic_moonlight, used with permission through a creative commons license.)

DOTW: Variations On A Theme

2008 is drawing to a close. Today marks the year's final "Deals of the Week" post. As this blogger takes time to reflect on the pre-holiday deal-making activity, it's no surprise that all of the deals in today's recap reflect broader themes at work in the biopharma industry. From Big Pharma's penchant for specialty products to highly structured alliances that allow both parties to share the financial risk (and gain), these deals mirror past DOTW discussions, as well as the larger themes highlighted in our various Deals Of The Year posts. DOTY voting commences on Monday. Remember to vote early and often. Until then, we hope you enjoy this week's variations on a theme. (Bach is optional.)

GSK/Dynavax: It was a good news, bad news kind of week for Dynavax. The biotech announced that it's partnership with Merck concerning the troubled Hepatitis B vaccine Heplisav was officially over (see below). Despite the bad news, Dynavax can at least take comfort in its recent deal with GlaxoSmithKline: an option-style tie-up that gives Dynavax $10 million up-front in exchange for a worldwide strategic alliance involving endosomal toll-like receptor drug candidates in four autoimmune and inflammatory disease areas, including Dynavax's preclinical TLR7/TLR9 inhibitor, DV1079. Under the deal's terms, Berkeley, Calif.-based Dynavax will conduct research and early clinical development using its proprietary technology, and GSK has the exclusive option to license each program at proof-of-concept, or earlier if certain circumstances occur. Should GSK exercise the option, it will take over development and commercialization activities, with Dynavax getting tiered royalties up to double digits, the two firms said Dec. 17. Dynavax, which could realize milestones up to $200 million apiece in each of the four programs, also retains the option to co-develop and co-market one pre-specified product. During a same-day investor call announcing the collaboration, Dynavax CEO Dino Dina called the partnership with GSK "a transformational event" for his biotech. "The alliance will allow us to diversify and advance a very valuable pipeline of products that target significant unmet needs," he said. According to "The Pink Sheet" DAILY, that's likely to be the case even if GSK ultimately declines the option on Dynavax's drug. Certainly, given the pipeline pressures of Big Pharma companies, it's unlikely there will be the stigma of "tainted product" attached to the program if GSK ultimately declines the option--assuming no adverse side-effects and positive clinical data with DV1079. Case in point: Exelixis. In October, GSK declined its option on Exelixis' small molecule oncologic XL184, ending a six-year R&D partnership that brought the latter firm an estimated $260 million in funding, including an $85 million loan. Exelixis regained all rights to XL184 and quickly partnered the molecule, along with an earlier-stage compound, with Bristol-Myers Squibb for $240 million in assured payments plus a major co-development and marketing role. For GSK , the deal marks the continuation of a business strategy heavily weighted toward option-based deals, which involve a relatively minimal upfront commitment for the global pharma, allowing it to hedge its financial exposure until the R&D risks are known more fully. In addition to its 2002 deal with Exelixis, GSK has also inked option arrangements with Cellzome, Affiris, Anacor, NeuroSearch, Regulus Therapeutics and OncoMed, according to FDC-Windhover's Strategic Transactions database.

Wyeth/Thiakis: This deal, which sees Wyeth acquiring London-based Thiakis’ obesity candidates, could best be described by a made-up word: alli-quisition (hey, you want real words, read a book). Wyeth pays $30 million up-front for Thiakis and its portfolio of synthetic gastrointestinal peptides and up to $120 million in earnouts tagged to downstream milestones. Our Pink Sheet DAILY in-depth coverage of the deal is here. Thiakis’ backers secure an exit—the biotech had raised about $19 million from private investors Novo and Advent Venture Partners—but without some of those milestone payments it’s not a particularly good one. Expect these kind of earn-out based deals to become more prominent as we move into 2009. With Big Pharma content to sit on the sidelines and wait while prices for biotech companies fall, most investors surveyed recently by FDC-Windhover believe future M&A activity is likely to place a premium on hedging risk. Earn-outs haven’t featured in a ton of deals lately—in fact thus far in 2008, just 20 percent of all private acquisitions have included earn-outs, down from a high in 2006 of nearly 43 percent of all private deals. (Read all about it in our next issue of START-UP.) Back to Wyeth: the pharma gets Thiakis' lead project, TKS1225, a potent, long-acting analogue of oxyntomodulin, which is a naturally occurring peptide hormone involved in regulating food intake. The hormone is released by the gut following food ingestion, sending satiety signals to the brain. It is thought to work through the GLP-1 receptor and does not cross the blood brain barrier, an important consideration given the suicidality risks associated with another class of obesity treatments, the CB-1 antagonists--Christopher Morrison.

Pfizer/Auxilium: As Big Pharmas continue to have more negotiating leverage, there’s a clear preference these days for tightly structured alliances rather than the outright biotech purchases. And given the regulatory hurdles associated with many big primary care drugs, Big Pharma is much more interested in specialty care products. Pfizer's tie-up this week with Auxilium illustrates both those trends. The two companies announced this week that Pfizer would pay $75 million upfront for the European rights to Xiaflex, a biological enzyme in Phase III for Dupuytren’s contracture and Phase IIb for Peyronie’s disease. Malvern, Pa.-based Auxilium stands to earn $150 million in regulatory milestones, $260 in sales-based milestones and increasing tiered royalties on Xiaflex if all goes well. Pfizer, meanwhile, has the right to negotiate commercial rights for additional indications within its territories, including frozen shoulder syndrome, where the drug is currently in Phase II trials. It sounds as though there was stiff competition for the biologic. In a conference call discussing the news, Auxilium CEO Armando Anido said the biotech chose Pfizer as its partner over several other global pharmas, because of the larger company's success marketing drugs such as Lipitor and Viagra. As might be expected, Pfizer's newly created specialty care business unit will have the commercialization honors. The Pfizer deal likely occurs at an ideal time for Auxilium, which faces a patent fight with Upsher-Smith Laboratories over intellectual property related to Testim, the biotech's testosterone gel for hypogonadism. Upsher-Smith notified Auxilium in October that it plans to file an Abbreviated NDA with the FDA for its own testosterone gel that it believes does not infringe on Testim's patent, which runs until January 2025.

Baxter/Avigen: Like so many other small biotech companies, Avigen, which focuses on neurological compounds, has had a tough year. The company has the dubious honor of posting one of the largest market cap losses among biotechs valued under $500 million in Q3 according to Rodman & Renshaw. Avigen's share price tanked in October when it announced negative news associated with AV650, its Phase IIb drug for the treatment of spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis. The biotech terminated its development partnership with Austria's Sanochemia Pharmazeutika and said it would focus on developing AV411, a novel glial activation inhibitor, for neuropathic pain and opioid withdrawal. But during its third-quarter financial call on Oct. 28, Avigen unveiled a massive restructuring plan that entailed discontinuing work on the glial activator and another preclinical product, AV513, unless a development partner could be found. CEO Kenneth Chahine said the new direction meant Avigen would have sufficient cash for four years of operations, given the $47.4 million the company had in cash, cash equivalents and securities at quarter's end. But the company's largest shareholder, Biotechnology Value Fund, which holds 29 percent of Avigen's stock and has provided capital directly to the biotech, clearly is troubled by the news. In a Dec. 11 letter to Avigen's board, BVF's Mark Lampert decried the steep decline in the company's share price, which has fallen 90 percent since 2004. He charged the company with threatening to destroy shareholder value by broadening "golden parachute" provisions for executives to one-fifth of Avigen's market cap and adopting a "poison pill" to prevent BVF from trying to intervene by purchasing a majority share. Lampert asserted that "Avigen has no real business at this time and has abandoned the development of all its products." Instead of looking for potential new partners and directions, the letter urged Avigen to return its excess cash to shareholders or at least offer a downside guarantee - an obligation to buy shares back at a specified price on a certain date. This week comes news that might appease Lampert and the crew at BVF. Avigen announced it was partnering its preclinical, oral blood coagulation product, AV513, to Baxter Healthcare in deal worth $7 million. "The sale of AV513 is an example of building value in a product that is differentiated from current therapies, and bringing it to a valuation point that generated a positive return on investment," said Avigen's Chahine in a press release announcing the news. Hmm, we can't wait for BVF's response.

GlaxoSmithKline/Genmab: Back in the days when licensors had clout, co-promote options featured in almost every deal. Biotechs figured they would keep their strategic options open just in case going commercial took their fancy, and Big Pharma were in no position to refuse. This week’s news that Genmab has sold back its co-promote option on CLL candidate ofatumumab to partner GlaxoSmithKline makes two things clear: first, many of these options are unlikely to ever be exercised given the logistical and financial commitments required (which is in large part why Big Pharma were so relaxed about granting them in the first place); second, in today's roiling financial markets, getting a guaranteed cash payment is a wiser course of action than holding out for theoretical money in the future. (A bird in the hand, as they say.) Genmab got just $4.5 million from GSK for the option, which covered a targeted oncology setting in the US and the Nordic region. Not a lot, particularly since GSK had granted Genmab the option to co-promote two of its own drugs , too—and agreed to reimburse some sales reps. But Genmab no longer has anything behind ofatumumab that could make a sales infrastructure cost-effective (one that Genmab estimates would have cost $7 million a year); it ended development of the potentially synergistic HuMax-CD4 for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and its other program is in head and neck cancer. So if it wouldn’t have exercised the option anyway, why not take the money? And why not re-negotiate a lower share of the (currently 50/50) R&D costs, too, in exchange for a bit of royalty?--Melanie Senior.

AstraZeneca/MAP Pharmaceuticals: Another day, another deal heavily weighted on the back end. On Friday Dec. 18, AstraZeneca and MAP Pharmaceuticals announced a worldwide collaboration to develop and commercialize MAP's proprietary nebulized formulation of budesonide, currently in Phase III development, for treatment of pediatric asthma. While the biodollars sounded huge--"AZ, MAP ink $900 million asthma deal" read one write-up of the transaction--the reality is far less glorious. Under the terms of the agreement, AstraZeneca will pay MAP Pharmaceuticals an upfront cash payment of just $40 million (certainly not bad). True, the company owes MAP another $35 million if the ongoing Phase III trial reaches certain primary endpoints with the appropriate safety results. And, it's also true that at some point in the future, MAP could receive up to $240 million in potential development and regulatory milestones, as well as sales performace-related milestones of up to $585 million in the event the product is a considerable commercial success. Don't get me wrong--$40 million is a sizeable chunk of non-dilutive change and kudos to MAP for getting the deal signed at all. But the other $860 million? It may never well materialize--and MAP and its investors would do well to remember that. (NOTE: MAP wasn't the only potential winner in this deal: Elan Pharmaceuticals may also get a welcome boost. MAP's proprietary formulation of budesonide comes courtesy of Elan's nanocrystal technology. )


Merck/Dynavax: It's official. Merck and Dynavax announced Friday Dec. 18 that they were tabling their agreement concerning Heplisav, a Phase 3 hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccine placed on clinical hold at the FDA earlier this year after a sgnificant adverse side-effect occurred. All rights to develop and commercialize Heplisav revert to Dynavax. According to the press release, Dynavax will continue to evaluate Heplisav's development options, especially as a treatment for adults outside the U.S. and for the global end-stage renal disease markets, which the company estimates represent approximately 70% of the total market opportunity for this vaccine. If the regulatory feedback is favorable, Dynavax plans to line up a new partner or financing arrangement to support necessary clinical work with the drug. It will be interesting to see how regulators outside the U.S. view the drug. Back in October, the FDA notified Merck and Dynavax that "the balance of risk versus potential benefit no longer favors continued clinical evaluation of Heplisav in healthy adults and children." Though Dynavax is putting on a brave face--it wins our award for the little biotech engine that could--there's no denying the company faces some tough choices in the months ahead. With limited cash resources--just $65 million including the recent up-front from GSK and '08 operating expenses for the first three quarters totalling over $50 million--it's hard to see how the company will be able to push Heplisav to the point where it is sufficiently derisked for potential future partners.

through the fingers by flickr user akash k courtesy of creative commons license.

Abbott Joins In: Sales Force too Kos-tly

The conversation over at Cafepharma is even more colorful than usual these days in the wake of news that Abbott is slashing 20% of its newly enlarged pharmaceutical sales force.

After it's $3.7 billion acquisition of Kos we expected Abbott to reduce headcount in sales--much the same way Lilly had little need for Icos' extra infrastructure after it acquired the company last year. Expect more companies to follow suit, as Big Pharma bulk up fading pipelines via acquisition of specialty pharmaceutical companies, or smaller companies with specialty pharma assets.

Shire nipped a potentially similar problem in the bud when it bought New River. Had the companies moved forward with their co-promotion agreement on Vyvanse (New River had previously opted in to this portion of the companies' deal), Shire would have found itself footing the bill for New River's 25% contribution to the cause.

Meanwhile, Abbott's axe falls this Wednesday.

First flagged up at Pharmalot

UPDATE: The AP is reporting that Abbott will also shed 200 jobs in R&D:

The majority of the 200 scientists and researchers to be cut will come from the company's offices in northern Illinois, Abbott spokesman Scott Stoffel said Monday night. The bulk will come from a research unit that deals with the early discovery of treatments for metabolic disorders such as obesity and diabetes, he said.