FierceBiotechFierceBiotechResearchFierceBiotechITFierceVaccinesFiercePharmaFiercePharmaManufacturing   FierceHealthcare

Top 10 mistakes biotechs make (3)

Tools

9. Not being ready for success

At long last, you've finished your trials, your drug is approved and you're ready to go--but you don't have enough of the drug to initiate sales because a manufacturing and supply sources are not in place. It's an understandable situation for small biotechs, says Ferruolo. Oftentimes they're not prepared for large scale manufacturing. However, being unprepared to commercialize wastes valuable time and can substantially reduce the ROI. If it takes a company a year to get up to speed, that is one year of lost sales-and a year of patent protection squandered.

Especially in difficult funding times, biotechs have to marshall and conserve their resources, and often focus all their efforts on clinical trials. Planning and preparation for manufacturing and commercializing are deferred, often with unrealistic expectations for making up the tie or assuming a partner or buyer will resolve the problem. Lack of such planning has been fatal to many deals. And companies who choose to go it alone often admit they made they made it through pure luck. Ferruolo recalls the words of one Agouron exec talking about the experience of launching Viracept. "He said, ‘If we knew how difficult it was we would have never tried to do it on our own,'" recalls Ferruolo. Agouron was eventually bought out by Pfizer.

10. Not knowing when to partner

When it comes to partnering, "a lot of bad decisions have been made." In the 1990s, biotechs partnered early and went public based on the validation provided by the partnering they did. Biotech companies then came to the view that companies were squandering their potential value by partnering too early. The preferred strategy for biotech became holding on to their programs and developing products themselves. "The problem with this is it almost always takes longer to develop a drug than you think. To advance a drug to its first pivotal trial, a private biotech company may have already raised over $100 million and will need access to the public market to raise more funding. What happens when the public markets are closed and the funds cannot be raised?" Waiting until late in the game to partner means your company is shouldering more of the risk.

Ferruolo recommends companies think strategically about partnering. Are you a platform company? Are you a product company? An indication company? What indications are you targeting? Are they chronic indications, like diabetes, that require large, long-term trials and a large sales force to market the drug? Or are you targeting a rare or fatal disease with no approved therapy that will require smaller trials with clearer endpoints and drugs that need only be marketed to a defined number of specialized centers. Each situation is unique so companies shouldn't follow generalized trends about when and how to partner.

Ferruolo closes with a final warning: "Don't make generalizations about the prospects for M&A." Despite recent reports, Big Pharma is not buying as many companies and programs as anticipated. "There should be more deals given the situation of Big Pharma and the need to build product pipelines to replace blockbuster drugs coming off patent in the next few years," he observes. "But it has become clear that you can't count on a partner or an acquisition." Even when deals get started, a lot of deals are not getting done. "All of us are seeing a lot of deals that have gotten past due diligence and the exchange of term sheets, even rounds of negotiation and drafting, only to have Big Pharma back out late in the game." Pharma is increasingly risk adverse and the public markets are getting weaker. In these times, expect buyers to wait longer for values to go down and risk to be diminished.


SHARE
WITH:
Email Twitter Facebook LinkedIn StumbleUpon
Get Your FREE FierceBiotech Email Newsletter:
Comments (6) | Post a comment

Comments

Excellent article and unfortunately in 20+ years have seen many examples of companies doing these things (some times more than one at once).

Usually it is #5 “Not listening to FDA” that is most tragic since typically the FDA will often provide guidance, it is just not overt, and people believe they can get overwhelming results that the Agencies will have to accept.

#9 “Not being ready for success” by not preparing commercial supply chain also is often counter productive as better to spend a little up front and build as you go rather than attempt to grow all at the end. Too many times focus gets to be on adding Sales & Marketing forces and/or fancy new buildings/programs while never supporting areas that have been neglected.

#8 Caveats in using Contractors is that make sure pick "right ones" and have people that can properly oversee them.

As a researcher it is nice to know in retrospect about the business and clinical decisions that have been behind company closures in my past, but what about mistakes in research? I have seen poorly designed research develop into clinical trials, and poor process development into manufacturing, and no matter the expertise and success in avoiding the top ten problems in this article, these developed into poorly designed trials and nightmare snags in manufacturing.

Can you present a Top Ten Mistakes In Biotech Research and Development?

--Jason Williams

Thank you for the suggestion. If I find a reliable source who could speak about common research mistakes, I'll certainly publish an article on it.

This is one of "the" best articles I have ever read! I have worked in Biotech for over 16 years and Nos. 4, 5, & 8 (especially 8) is an excellent portrayal of what really happens.

Biotech companies are far too eager to jump on the CRO wagon without taking into account what they really have in-house, or actually listening to their employees when they indicate that a certain project could quite easily be accomplished by certain staff on hand. If these companies would sit back for a second when it comes to determining who to hire for whatever position (I am referring to Clinical and RA here), they need to take a very close look at the applicants and their actual strengths & accomplishments within the industry, they may lack experience in some areas, however, in other areas they shine. So instead of dismissing these applicants because they "just don't have 'exactly' what a company needs," Biotech seriously needs to take a "chance" on some of these people in relation to training them to the degree that they will, in a very short time, have 'exactly' what they need, in addition to loyalty and dedication to a project/program that they have never seen in someone who basically uses the company as a "stepping stone" to move ahead.

Excellent article for anyone in this space. I have seen each of these somewhere along the line during my 30 years in the industry. The biggest personal challenges that I have witnessed have been: Not listening to the FDA, Not raising enough capital and Not knowing when to partner.

The biotechnology industry is incredibly exciting and abounds with entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurs tend to be highly optimistic by nature and willing to take risks and that is great. Unfortunately this optimism needs to have some real world grounding that is all too often missed.

Thanks for sharing.

I absolutely agree with the CRO outsourcing. I am a Sr CRA and I have seen the incompetene of the CRO's work in many, many trials. They send out CRAs with no medical background and expect them to find adverse events, etc, when they cannot even READ the medical records. The quality of monitoring in the CROs is a joke. Sponsors should know better. If the CRA is not an RN or trained healthcare professional, he/she should not be in this industry.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

More information about formatting options

To combat spam, please enter the code in the image.