When you consider the value of an asset, it can effectively be expressed
as the integration of several variables over the lifetime of the product. During discovery there is research value or
scientific value; then clinical and medical value follow as you develop the
product; when it actually gets approved you then find the commercial value and
most importantly the patient value.
There are many factors in that equation that either will increase or
decrease the value during the asset’s development, depending how you manage
it. The value perceived initially may be
very different than the value realised when it is launched into market, and one
of the problems with discovery and development organisations is that they see a
lot of value in the science and a lot of value in the research – without
necessarily answering the question about whether that will translate into
commercial value.
The statistics point strongly to the low odds of taking an asset from
its scientific starting-point to having commercial value. In 2016 there are just under 14,000 assets in
the development pipeline around the world; approximately two per cent of these
will be approved. Unsurprisingly, slightly
more than half (approximately 8,000) of those in development are in the early
stages (preclinical and Phase I).
In addition, world-wide there has been an explosion of new companies. In the last five years there has been an over
50% increase (2387 in 2011 to 3687 in 2016) in start-up companies. Over half of those in the market are
developing just one or two assets – in effect betting the whole company on the
success of one drug. It’s a very big
gamble, which is why persisting with an asset that is clinically sound but
commercially irrelevant is such a mistake.
There are many small start-up companies which spent eight to ten years
developing a product, only to fail in approval, or else realise too late that
there were no proper commercial endpoints or did not meet a substantial unmet
need.
To be successful means identifying the need and the commercial value
early on in the development process, as well as revisiting and refining the
value as you progress through the various Phases. It means understanding what else is coming
onto the market from a competitive perspective and the clinical relevance from
a patient perspective. If other products enter your market before you launch,
this will alter the commercial value of your asset and may alter the clinical
relevance of your asset, so you will need to rethink the endpoints.
Clinical relevance is increasingly important for approval, and if your
asset is not superior – certainly in Europe and increasingly in the US – you
are unlikely to gain approval. Or
possibly a worse case –approval with little utilization. With as few as 30 or 40 new products approved
in these markets each year, the threshold is set high.
The other reason for thinking about value throughout development process
is that at each phase, more investment will be needed, especially in smaller
companies – and bear in mind that many of these have no revenue at all. So if the (perceived commercial) value is not
going up at every stage, investors will be reluctant to continue backing the
asset.
Investors understand that it’s a gamble, but like every gambler they
want the best odds. The figures really
are staggering: there are companies with assets in development that have
capital values in the billions, and they don’t even have a commercial product.
For example, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, with its lead product in Phase
III, has a market capitalisation of $7.4 billion, despite having no marketed
products; or Achillion Pharmaceuticals with a market capitalisation of $1.2 billion,
with its lead asset in Phase II. Those
figures represent a huge show of confidence by investors that the scientific
value of their assets will eventually translate into commercial value.
But while venture capital investors are pumping many billions of dollars
into the sector, biotechs wanting a slice of that cash to support the
development of their asset are increasingly having to demonstrate not just the
scientific value of that asset, but the potential and/or actual clinical and
commercial value of it as well.
So that is why managing the metamorphosis from scientific to clinical to
commercial value is so vital. What actually needs to be done to achieve that
aim? By looking at key decisions which
need to be made at the value inflection points, we can improve the probability
of getting a drug successfully to
market.
You need to accept that there will always be market forces, that you can
manage but can’t control. Having a good
look over the horizon of what is happening
in the market clinically and commercially is pretty important, because if you
have a static program for development over six to eight years you're bound to
fail.
However, if you have a dynamic process, meaning you understand the
market changes (what new drugs may emerge, how the clinical differentiation may
evolve or how patient needs may change) and adapting your development to those
changes (which is perfectly possible, because you can change your target
product profile and therefore your endpoints), then you can improve your
probability of success.
So keep an eye on value. That
means understanding, and making sure you’re addressing, patients’ needs. But it also means understanding payer policy
and payers’ needs as well.
Even entering Phase II you need to get a good read on things like cost
benefits, reimbursement policies and positioning, because without doing that
you could end up with an asset that is clinically relevant but commercially
irrelevant.
But even earlier in the development process – coming out of discovery,
entering Phase I – your value proposition is essential. That is when you do proof of concept, when you
outline a value proposition that needs to include not just a commercial view of
what is in the market, but also a payer view.
This early phase is also when you need to start doing things like early
medical communication, touching in to the market to understand how receptive
customers (physicians and of course patients) will be.
As you move through the Phases of development, the next step is to take
that unmet need and value proposition, and understand the clinical and commercial
endpoints.
As you move up that curve of
value and commercial relevance, it is important to get payer acceptance of your
concept, because you will now need to start putting serious money down, hence
the expected value needs to be realised as you go forward.
This is often the point (Phase IIA or IIB) at which smaller companies
decide to out-license, because they are facing a huge investment; if the value
can be demonstrated, they can attract investors. If you only start to think about the inherent
value of your asset at this stage, you are unlikely to be an attractive
proposition.
In some cases this commercial imperative doesn’t come naturally; many
researchers get enamoured with the intrinsic (scientific) value of the
research. But to survive, these
companies have to be commercially viable, so you really need to have a
commercial view on life from day one and not be blinded by your personal
investment in the research.
In a lot of companies marketing and sales is viewed as a ‘dirty function’,
because scientists tend to be a little more idealistic about their research,
but there's a point where idealism in research has to give way to realism of
commercialization. If you are a
scientist it’s OK to embrace the ‘dark side’ of commercialization, because in
the end it is what will allow your research and development to get to the
patients who need it most.
In the end, passion can’t replace profit. Those biotechs that recognise the need to
manage the value of their asset during the development process, to make it both
clinically and commercially relevant, are those who will see their assets
translated into approved products on the market. Ultimately it’s about adding value to
healthcare system, providing a commercial return for those who had the faith to
invest in the product, and helping patients. Scientific passion, relevant product and
appropriate profit equals value.
The Author
Jim
Hall is President of Cello Health BioConsulting. He can be contacted at jhall@cellohealth.com.