What Biotech Wants From Big Pharma Partners: Survey Says!?

With Big Pharma's internal R&D productivity in the proverbial toilet, business development plays a critical role in securing drugmakers' future wellspring of innovation. Thus, what biotechs think of pharma as partners matters, perhaps more than it ever has before.

Two companies that can pat themselves on the back? Roche and Merck & Co., who took home top honors as best partners in a recent survey of biotech execs published by the Boston Consulting Group.

GSK, Novartis, Eli Lilly and Pfizer also scored well, with one biotech – Celgene – sneaking onto the leader board with the third-highest proportion of respondents having a favorable impression of the company’s partnering capabilities. (Celgene's appearance shouldn't surprise our blog readers; in our 2010 Deals of the Year competition, the biotech, whose deal making prowess will be analyzed more completely in an upcoming IN VIVO feature, chalked up wins in two different categories.)

The BCG survey is the fourth in a series, following similar efforts in 2003, 2006 and 2008. The goal, says BCG partner Simon Goodall, is to determine the key characteristics companies are looking for in a partner, and which buy-siders are best fulfilling those wishes.

The survey was sent to about 500 heads of business development and chief executives during the summer of 2010, and the results are based on approximately 100 responses. Interestingly, BCG found that changes in Big Pharma corporate leadership could impact the perceptions of potential biotech partners quite quickly; despite Chris Viehbacher’s short tenure at Sanofi-Aventis, for instance, biotechs believe the French pharma is a more attractive partner because of its more outward-looking focus.

Moreover, views of Roche and Merck were not hurt by their respective mega-acquisitions of Genentech and Schering-Plough. And Japanese companies – which scored poorly in earlier surveys and were largely indistinguishable in potential partners’ view of their characteristics – have made great strides both as a group and individually. Several now score above the average overall.

“In 2003 the results told us that everyone was awful,” recalls Goodall. Less than one in three companies received a positive overall response from BCG’s list of biotech partners. Those results improved in 2006, and again in 2008, with nearly half garnering positive responses. At the same time the list of biotech ‘wants’ shifted from solid commercial capabilities to a willingness to allow biotechs to retain control over their assets. At last reckoning, in 2008, the full impact of the financial crisis was yet to be felt by the biotech community, says Goodall. “They felt they wouldn’t be as badly affected as pharma,” he says.

The financial meltdown and its impact on the biotech financing climate have helped to shape biotechs’ current wish list of important partner characteristics. In 2010, practical considerations like clinical and sales/marketing capabilities, alongside a partner’s ability to add value to a biotech’s compound, rose to the top of the list. Fuzzier characteristics, including ‘responsiveness during the deal negotiation process’, ‘fit with corporate culture,’ and ‘alliance management capability’ faded in importance. Even so, “organizations are thinking more carefully about how they project a partnership image,” says Goodall. “There’s a careful orchestration and coordination and companies are recognizing they need to make decisions more quickly, and be more efficient.”

BCG has not divulged the “losers” in its survey (feel free to ruminate in the comments below), and so we’ll have to make do with analyzing which pharma companies performed the best against key characteristics in the eyes of the respondents.

Ranked as a percentage of responders that agreed a company exhibited particular criteria, Roche struck gold in four categories, as the company is most associated with deal structure flexibility, executive leadership, alliance management, and manufacturing expertise. Merck led in five categories: responsiveness, BD/licensing group access, therapeutic areas of interest (tied with Novartis), control over development, and ‘develop and prosper,’ a metric related to post-deal success.

Pfizer and Novartis took honors in three categories apiece. Novartis took the prize for TAs of interest, regulatory capability, and research expertise. Pfizer excelled in global reach and access/reimbursement, as well as in an area it would perhaps rather forget: ‘pay highest price.’

Price tags aside, on the whole it appears that industry is moving in the right direction -- and when business development is companies' best hope at securing the next generation of important, valuable drug candidates, that's good news for everyone.

UPDATE: you can request a copy of the survey here.

Pfizer Channels Economist E.F. Schumacher

Okay so how 'bout that for an esoteric title?

Permit IN VIVO to flash back to the 1970s for a few minutes. In 1973, British economist EF Schumacher published his landmark series of essays Small Is Beautiful during the midst of an energy crisis and a raging debate about the risks of nuclear power. Among the many notable passages in the treatise is this gem:

“Even today, we are generally told that gigantic organizations are inescapably necessary; but when we look closely we can notice that as soon as great size has been created there is often a strenuous attempt to attain smallness within bigness.”

Schumacher, who worked with John Maynard Keynes and John Kenneth Galbraith, didn’t aim his book specifically at biopharma, but it’s striking how relevant the concepts proposed – especially the notion that “the fundamental task is to achieve smallness within the large organization” – are to our industry. As it faces its great R&D stagnation, Big Pharma is on the undeniable quest to manage size, creating smallness within the bigness in hopes of improving upon its innovation track record.

In their R&D strategies, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi Aventis are all at different places in terms of promoting the small is the new big concept, with GSK leading the charge. Years into a radical R&D reorg, Glaxo continues to evolve its model, with the goal of integrating its biotech-like drug units with the respective downstream medicines development centers to create end-to-end business groups.

Beyond R&D, there’s also the raging “focus versus diversification” debate, which gained new significance after Bernstein Research’s Tim Anderson published a March 14 note suggesting the world’s biggest pharma was mulling the heretofore unthinkable: shrinking from its outsize $67 billion revenue base to a much more modest—and manageable—base of $35 to $40 billion. ( For those keeping score –and since March Madness has begun who isn’t?—it’s a question IN VIVO explicitly raised two years ago in “Why Doesn’t Pharma Get Smaller?”)

Say what? Didn’t Pfizer buy Wyeth after jettisoning its own consumer health program in part to lessen its exposure to high risk-- and expensive to develop--innovative therapeutics. Given Pfizer’s lack of immediate success, do we now throw the idea of the industrial pharma out the window?

Maybe not. Just days after the Bernstein note came news that Eli Lilly wanted to bulk up its own animal health division via the acquisition of J&J’s Janssen Animal Health group. And there’s no doubt GSK, Sanofi, and Novartis remain enamored with the diversified approach: each has formidable consumer health care operations and emerging markets strategies relying on selling branded generics. Novartis has of course pushed into commodity generics as well, through Sandoz, and still manages to notch innovative R&D successes: If the launch of the first-in-class oral multiple sclerosis drug Gilenya wasn’t proof enough, look at last week’s announcement that the pharma’s Phase III Janus kinase inhibitor INC424, partnered with Incyte, has wrapped a second pivotal trial and is on track for EU and US regulatory filings by Q2 2011.

Make no mistake. Pfizer’s ruminations on the spin-offs of its four non-traditional pharma businesses – as well as its Established Products Unit – seem unlikely to spark an “hey everybody, let’s get small” moment. That’s because there’s still plenty of risk in the high flying R&D model espoused by companies like BMS (and Amgen). One only has to look at new mechanisms like UnitedHealthcare’s Cancer Care pathway program, which bundles payments to doctors using evidenced-based medicine guidelines, to see how changing reimbursement practices could make new product launches tougher.

So maybe the lesson isn’t that everybody should get small, but some companies definitely ought to get smaller. If the words of one of Pfizer’s top executives, head of R&D Mikael Dolsten are any guide, the big pharma’s management is coming ‘round to this way of thinking. Speaking at Barclay’s Capital investor conference March 17, Dolsten emphasized: “We need...to understand what is the maximum value for those businesses, which of them actually have a higher value by being inside Pfizer…and which would...create more value for shareholders outside the company."

Let’s suppose Schumacher is right and “the large-scale organization is here to stay.” As he points out in Small Is Beautiful that also means “the stronger the current, the greater the need for skillful navigation.” For biopharma this entails managing size appropriately to restore R&D productivity but in such a way that it is possible to mitigate the risks associated with health care reform and payor decisions.

At the end of the day, a behemoth the size of Pfizer may just be too damn big to be flexible enough to pivot in a rapidly changing health care environment.

Pfizer vs. Merck and the Future of R&D: Deja Vu All Over Again

Pfizer and Merck begin 2011 with brand new CEOs and not a whole lot else in common.

Merck's new CEO, Ken Frazier, took over the reins as part of a planned succession on January 1. Ian Read took over as CEO of Pfizer much more suddenly, when Jeff Kindler resigned abruptly in December.

Both faced essentially the same challenge as 2011 began: how to deal with unrealistic expectations for growth in 2012.

By now you know the story. Pfizer's Read responded by acknowledging that revenues would not meet expectations, but pledged that earnings would, thanks primarily to some deep cuts in R&D. Frazier, in contrast, said simply that Merck would no longer stand by its guidance, taking the position of defending R&D spending rather than sacrifice new opportunities for relatively short term earnings targets.

Ah, its good to have Merck and Pfizer posing a strategic dichotomy in R&D again!

A dozen years ago, Pfizer (under CEO Hank McKinnell) and Merck (under Ray Gilmartin) waged a similar battle for the hearts and minds of investors during an earlier (and much, much smaller) patent cliff period.

Remember when Pfizer swooped in to buy Warner-Lambert away from American Home Products? Though Pfizer wasn't the loudest advocate of the view, the acquisition put the company in the camp of those who argued that the future of R&D depended on "critical mass"--building the scale to allow huge investments across a range of therapeutic areas and targets to drive growth for the decade ahead. Pfizer followed the Warner-Lambert deal with the acquisition of Pharmacia, and built its position as the biggest of Big Pharma in that era.

Merck, on the other hand, declared its intention to eschew big mergers, with Gilmartin saying any mega-deal would be a "distraction" from the core business of delivering organic growth from internal R&D supplemented by licensing or small, targeted acquisitions. And Merck stood by its guns, become the first Big Pharma to weather a genuine patent cliff (Zocor, primarily) without making a big acquisition (or being bought up itself).

So who was right?

Well, its hard to argue that "critical mass" was such a great idea, what with Pfizer's Read taking the scissors to his company's bloated R&D budget. On the other hand, it isn't like Merck did so well with that organic growth thing either; the company's acquisition of Schering-Plough two years ago, was if nothing else a repudiation of the "distraction" argument.

The fact is that neither company succeeded in delivering a sustainable product flow over the decade that followed the strategic divergence. That is why both are in the pickle they are in today.

Read and Frazier are now charting different paths. It seems unlikely that both are right. But history says both could well be wrong.

image from flickr user mtsofan used under a creative commons license