Показаны сообщения с ярлыком Life Sciences industry. Показать все сообщения
Показаны сообщения с ярлыком Life Sciences industry. Показать все сообщения

вторник, 6 сентября 2016 г.

US deals dominate medtech M&A

SourceEP Vantage
CompanyMedtronicAlconAmerican Medical SystemsBaxter InternationalCovidienDENTSPLY SironaEndo Internationalev3FreseniusGambroGrifolsJohnson & JohnsonLiberty Dialysis HoldingsNovartisPhadiaSirona Dental SystemsSynthesThermo Fisher Scientific 
TagsAnalysis, Company Strategy, Europe, USA, Medtech, Diagnostic, Various, Acquisition, Free Content
DateSeptember 06, 2016
A recent EP Vantage analysis revealed that, in the biopharma world, European companies are splashing the cash on US-based takeovers, while a lot less is spent in the other direction. But in medtech the opposite is true: US acquisitions of European companies are worth much more than European takeouts of US groups (see tables below).
The reason for the discrepancy is probably down to scale and resources: European medtech companies are generally smaller and less well funded than their cousins across the pond. There have been several sizeable takeouts of European groups in recent years, raising the question of which larger companies in the region could still be acquired. The perennial takeover target Smith & Nephew  seems like one obvious contender.
As for European companies that could strike deals of their own, the imaging giants Siemens  and  Philips  might look to the US for bolt-on buys. But with many other European groups lacking the firepower of their US counterparts, the current trend looks set to continue.
Cross border acquisitions 
According to the latest analysis, US-on-US buyouts still made up the biggest chunk of the overall medtech deal value in the past five years, and today's $4bn deal between Danaher and Cepheid is another example (Danaher strikes again with Cepheid buy, September 6, 2016).
But the amount of dollars spent by US companies on European groups is not far behind. Even when Medtronic ’s record-breaking $50bn purchase of Ireland -based Covidien  is excluded the value of US-on-Europe deals is still well above those flowing from Europe to the US.


European venture capitalists are much more risk-averse than those in the US, which has led to a particularly pronounced early-stage funding gap in on the continent (Vantage Point – Risk-averse European VCs drive medtech start-ups to crowdfunding, April 21, 2015). This means that European medtech groups find it harder to grow, so are more likely to be seen as prey rather than predator.
European VCs have raised several big medtech-focused funds this year, which could help address this funding gap (Vantage Point – Will medtech venture capital return to early-stage investments?, April 27, 2016). 
Even so, it could take a long time for any benefit to trickle down in the form of a greater capacity to carry out acquisitions. The trend of big US groups buying European companies, either for their technology or to gain more tax-friendly headquarters, looks like it is here to stay for a while.
A lower tax rate was one consideration behind the biggest ever medtech deal, Medtronic ’s $50m purchase of Covidien , with which the US company gained an Irish domicile – although the bigger group insisted that it was not all about tax.


The Medtronic -Covidien buy accounts for most of the overall value of US acquisitions of Irish groups. If it is excluded, the most popular countries for US companies to do deals were Switzerland  and the UK, which both have more attractive corporate tax rates than the US.
US on EU – top five 2010-15 
Acquirer Target Deal value ($bn) 
Medtronic  Covidien  49.9 
Johnson & Johnson  Synthes 19.7 
Dentsply Sirona  5.5 
Baxter  Gambro  3.9 
Thermo  Fisher Phadia 3.4 
Meanwhile, among the European groups looking to the US, Irish companies were the biggest spenders. However, many of these deals came from Covidien  and  Allergan  – effectively US operations domiciled in  Ireland . This trend was also seen in the pharma industry (Few M&A teams venture beyond domestic borders, August 24, 2016). 



The biggest purchase of a US group by a European company was in fact a mixed medtech/pharma buy: Novartis ’s acquisition of Alcon  gave it a portfolio of intraocular lenses and surgical equipment as well as ophthalmic drugs.
Endo  is another pharma specialist that bought into devices through its acquisition of American Medical Systems – but it later sold off most of that unit to Boston Scientific (Endo exits medtech – almost, March 2, 2015).
It seems that while European companies can mix it with the big boys in the pharma industry, in medtech they are still the poor cousins. Until the funding situation changes, this is likely to continue to be the case.
EU on US – top five 2010-15 
Acquirer Target Deal value ($bn) 
Novartis  Alcon  9.6 
Endo International  American Medical Systems 2.9 
Covidien  ev3 2.6 
Fresenius  Liberty Dialysis Holdings 1.7 
Grifols  Novartis ’s blood transfusion diagnostics business 1.7 

To contact the writers of this story email Madeleine Armstrong or Edwin Elmhirst in London at news@epvantage.com


четверг, 18 августа 2016 г.

Pharma’s Productivity Problem: Finding More Blockbuster Drugs



вторник, 22 декабря 2015 г.

Is Pharma Ready for the Future?



The way medicine is manufactured is about to be radically transformed.

The pharmaceuticals industry — with its major investments in research, reliance on complex chemistry, and sophisticated understanding of human biology — is generally regarded as a technologically advanced sector. When it comes to manufacturing, however, pharma is stuck in the past. The current methods of making drugs, which are labor intensive and inefficient, are based on batch processes that have been in place in this sector since the mid-20th century. Worse still, the traditional manufacturing techniques make pharmaceuticals  prone to contamination.
But that’s about to change, thanks to production innovations. A new approach called continuous manufacturing is on the verge of transforming the pharmaceutical value chain. It will affect every company in this industry, from giant multinationals to the third-party manufacturers that small startups hire to make their products. This shift in production capability will rapidly become “table stakes” for leading pharmaceutical firms. It has the potential to make drug manufacturing more efficient, less expensive, and more environmentally friendly. And it is not the only transformative innovation in this space. Digital fabrication — the so-called 3D printing of drugs — is also gaining traction as a viable technology for making small batches of medicines that have been too costly and impractical to produce.
Embracing such developments will be vital if the industry is to adapt to the pressures it faces today. The healthcare industry is in a state of flux. Global spending on healthcare has been soaring, and several countries have introduced initiatives intended to bring costs under control. The U.S. is still learning how to deal with the changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act. Around the world, reforms have unleashed numerous disruptive innovations, and growth in emerging markets is creating a large pool of prospective consumers.
In addition, pharma companies are struggling with challenges specific to their industry. Patents for many drugs — some of them blockbusters, which have created billions of dollars in revenue — have expired, and more will do so in the coming years. Health systems are no longer willing (or able) to pay what they used to for pharmaceuticals. Regulators and the public are asking pharma companies to produce and deliver more complex product portfolios at a lower cost, in more and more markets — while continuing to meet stringent quality requirements.
Amid such pressures, the industry has been slow to change its tried-and-true manufacturing methods. Why? Because chief operating officers have generally focused on making sure their high-margin products remained in stock and met quality requirements. So long as manufacturing costs were kept within industry norms, operating chiefs didn’t give much thought to them. Furthermore, changes in manufacturing processes often have regulatory ramifications. In most countries, all material changes to the way drugs are designed or produced need to be approved by the appropriate government agencies.

Continuous Manufacturing Takes Hold

Increasingly, however, the industry is being prodded to update its manufacturing approach and adopt new paradigms, and COOs are more focused on controlling costs. Drug companies are also under pressure to deliver a larger number of products to a wider range of markets. That’s where continuous manufacturing comes in.
In conventional pharma operations, drugs are produced in batches (rather than in assembly-line fashion, as cars are). Ingredients are mixed in large vats, in separate steps. Different parts of the process — the blending of powder ingredients, formation of pellets, compression into tablets, and coating — sometimes take place at different plants. Drugs are then packaged in a separate multistep process. The operation is time consuming, asset intensive, and expensive. The risk of contamination is always present because batches of partially finished medicines must be moved from place to place.
Continuous manufacturing technology breaks completely with this old methodology. It combines the segmented steps of batch manufacturing into one cohesive process, with more streamlined product flows and faster production times. Factories using this technology are designed for flexibility and for rapid, high-quality throughput, with more open floor plans and smaller footprints, and lower building and capital costs. The continuous model uses inline quality control to perpetually monitor what is being produced (instead of using traditional batch-based testing), which reduces the potential for contamination.
Continuous systems for pharma are still new, but they are showing very promising results. Many industry observers expect the first products made with this method to be introduced to the market in early 2016. Some of the established industry leaders are taking heed. GlaxoSmithKline plans to open a plant in Singapore in 2016 that will deploy a continuous manufacturing system, and leaders expect to cut both costs and carbon footprint by half, compared with those for a traditional manufacturing plant.
Novartis, a pioneer in such efforts, has partnered with the MIT Center for Continuous Manufacturing, and is investing US$65 million in a joint 10-year research project. The two parties have already concluded that continuous manufacturing will benefit patients, healthcare providers, and the pharmaceuticals industry. This project has demonstrated, for example, that continuous manufacturing can accelerate the introduction of new drugs through efficient production. It also tends to minimize waste, energy consumption, and raw material use, and to enhance companies’ flexibility in responding to market needs.
Continuous manufacturing has the capacity to allow pharma — which turns over inventory more slowly than most other major sectors — to catch up to companies in other fields, such as consumer products. With traditional batch manufacturing, production takes 200 to 300 days from the start of production to packaging and shipment to the pharmacy. Optimization can sometimes get this time down to 100 days. Continuous manufacturing, however, can produce a quantum leap, reducing throughput times to less than 10 days. Combined with the smaller plant sizes, this approach could reduce overall operating costs and capital expenditures by 25 to 60 percent, according to the researchers at the MIT-Novartis project (see exhibit).

Printing Medicine

Although continuous manufacturing is the wave of the near future, the advent of chemputing — what’s commonly called the 3D printing of drugs — is not far behind. 3D printing is already altering many processes and sectors, including the manufacture of clothing and toys and, in healthcare, the development of custom prostheses for amputees.
The technology also has the potential to revolutionize the pharma industry. Prototypes and projects have been in development for several years. In 2012, Craig Venter, the scientist best known for sequencing the human genome, unveiled a plan to develop 3D-printable vaccines. And University of Glasgow professor Lee Cronin has already started two companies that aim to develop and test processes for drug manufacture using 3D printing technology. Cronin’s device uses gel-based “inks” — including carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, vegetable oils, paraffin, and other ingredients — to create uniform molecules that can be combined in different formulations.
And in August 2015, the Food and Drug Administration approved the first ever 3D-printed prescription pill for consumer use, a treatment for epilepsy called Spritam, sold by Aprecia Pharmaceuticals. The new formulation dissolves significantly faster than a typical pill, which is a benefit to epilepsy patients, who may have trouble swallowing medication.
Production using these methods is well suited to drugs aimed at very small patient populations — those patients with “orphan diseases” or specific cancer mutations. The methods will thus advance the development of personalized medicine.
To stay current, pharmaceutical companies will need to embrace the new technologies. Rather than supplanting continuous manufacturing, 3D printing will likely work in tandem with it. This combination will give pharma companies great flexibility to produce different drugs in different ways, depending on their markets, their costs, and other specific requirements.

Davids and Goliaths

Big pharma companies are not the only ones that will feel the impact of these new technologies. Continuous manufacturing and chemputing are also game changers for relatively small pharmaceutical companies, including startups. Small pharma companies have typically found themselves challenged by manufacturing, with its high asset intensity and minimum efficient scale. But if the barriers to entry and the operating costs fall significantly, these companies will have a much easier time making their own drugs.
In the past, companies that couldn’t afford a global operations network had to outsource the production of their drugs to third-party contract manufacturers. The advent of cheaper, faster, safer drug manufacturing will ripple out to this group. To avoid obsolescence, they will need to embrace these innovations and enhance their own service offerings.
Supply chains will also evolve. With smaller factories and faster production cycles, pharma companies will be able to produce drugs much closer to where they’re needed. The industry can expect to see lower inventories, corresponding reductions in warehouse costs, and shorter transportation routes.
For the “Goliaths” of big pharma, this change comes not a moment too soon. Jonathan Rauch, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, noted in a March 2015 paper that the industry’s endemic “cost-no-object, value-no-concern approach,” as he calls it, has made companies “seemingly impervious to disruptive innovations.” It has been impossible for competitors to break past the barriers to entry that exist, in part because of entrenched regulatory approaches and practices in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere. However, he added, a growing culture of disruptive entrepreneurship is gaining a foothold, and manufacturing may be the most likely place to start.
The operations sector of the pharmaceuticals industry is now evidently willing and prepared to take the lead. And other observers agree that the short- and long-term winners will be not only the drug companies, both large and small, that smartly adapt, but also the patients whose medicines will become more effective and cheaper.
Although the first product of this system, as MIT-Novartis announced, could be out and approved soon, no one should expect that all drugs will soon be produced with the new technology. The coming decade will likely see a mix of traditional and continuous manufacturing techniques, as the older methods are phased out and newer technologies ramp up.
Pharmaceuticals manufacturing is like the airline industry at the beginning of the jet age in the mid-1950s. Companies may continue to function for the near term without upgrading their manufacturing technologies, just as many airlines kept flying propeller planes through the 1970s. But by 2025 (or sooner), the most successful pharma companies will be those that embraced today’s emerging manufacturing technologies.

суббота, 23 мая 2015 г.

Debunking The Five Big Myths About 'Big Pharma'




Contributor
John Lechleiter

If you are a regular reader of politically oriented commentaries on the pharmaceutical industry then you are familiar with, and perhaps even subscribe to, what I call “the Big Five”—myths about this industry that routinely poison debates, obscure genuine problems, and distort policy recommendations on health care. These myths have been all over the public arena again recently, and it’s time to confront them systematically.
Myth #1 Pharmaceutical companies exaggerate the costs of developing new medicines to justify high prices. In fact: The research and development (R&D) expenditures of this industry are staggering—and since they are matters of public record there is no way and no need to exaggerate them.
In the U.S., the member companies of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) alone spent more than $51 billion on R&D in 2014. That total is based on the same audited financial statements that appear in our annual financial reports to shareholders. In my own company’s case our R&D spending last year was $4.7 billion. In fact, the pharmaceutical industry accounts for 21 percent of all R&D spending by all U.S. businesses—creating and sustaining hundreds of thousands of jobs while serving as a the engine of biomedical progress for the entire world. This level of investment is what is required today to bring forth new medicines.
Myth #2 Industry does not develop most new medicines; they come from government and university laboratories. In fact: Government and academic research contribute in essential ways to biomedical progress—but the complex and expensive process of turning insights on diseases and promising leads into approved treatments for patients occurs almost entirely in private industry.
A recent academic analysis helps to tease out the key distinctions. Looking at the patent applications of all of the drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 1988 to 2005, the study found that nearly half of the new drugs cited either a public-sector patent or a government publication in their patent applications—demonstrating that publically funded research often contributes indirectly to the discovery and development of new medicines. But fully 91 percent of the approved drugs themselves were patented in the private sector—demonstrating that they were substantially discovered and developed by private firms.
Myth #3 Prescription medicines are the main driver of health-care cost increases. In fact: Expenditures on prescription medicines have been a stable component of health-care spending over time and often contribute to overall cost savings rather than to increases.
Only about 10 cents of every U.S. health-care dollar is spent on retail prescription medicines—which is the same share that was spent on prescriptions in 1960. While the overall use of medicines to treat many diseases has increased dramatically in that same period of time—and average life expectancy at birth in the U.S. has increased by more than nine years—the share of spending accounted for by prescription medicines is the same as it was 55 years ago. That comparison makes pretty clear that medicines are deliveringvalue to the system rather than driving unsustainable cost increases.
study published in the journal Health Affairs provides a good example of how this has worked. The researchers compared total medical expenditures for patients with four major diseases who faithfully used the medicines prescribed by their doctors versus those who did not. The “adherent” patients incurred somewhat higher prescription-drug costs, of course, but savings in their overall health-care expenses exceeded the extra drug costs by wide margins.
The fact that nearly nine out of 10 U.S. prescriptions are filled with generic medicines (which originated in the innovator sector, by the way) also has a lot to do with the overall stability of drug costs. The impact of generics has been especially positive for senior citizens and the programs that insure them. Looking at the top 10 prescription classes by volume used by Medicare Part D beneficiaries, the average daily cost of these therapies declined from $1.50 in 2006 to well under a dollar in 2013, and is headed much lower still.

пятница, 5 декабря 2014 г.

5 Best Practices to Secure Enterprise-Wide Buy-In for Master Data Management

Posted by Stephanie V

all_aboard 
The benefits of master data management in the life sciences industry cannot be understated; the enterprise-wide MDM approach allows for better communication across departments, ultimately leading to a reduction in overhead cost and significant improvements in overall business functioning. Unfortunately, in spite of the ample evidence suggesting that MDM is the way of the future in the world of life sciences, stakeholders may not be in favor of this approach. Convincing reluctant stakeholders is possible, but it requires thorough research and a compelling presentation littered with case studies and industry-wide analytics. The securing of an enterprise-wide buy-in may be a guaranteed challenge, but the following five best practices should make reluctant stakeholders more amenable to the idea of MDM.

1. Offer a Simplified Explanation of Master Data Management

Master data management may not be a familiar concept among stakeholders. Those unable to understand the basics of this approach are far less likely to approve of an enterprise-wide buy-in. Thus, a simplified explanation may be required before launching into case studies, industry surveys and the like. In addition to explaining the basic concept of master data management, be sure to address the difference between functional and enterprise solutions while highlighting the benefits of the latter option.

2. Address Concerns Related to Data Loss and Redundancy

After learning the basics surrounding enterprise-wide commercial data solutions, stakeholders may voice concerns related to everything from data security to duplicate information. These are all valid concerns and must be addressed candidly so as to appease stakeholders' fears. If a thorough, detailed plan for data security is presented, stakeholders will be far easier to convince of the approach's superior return on investment.

3. Provide Tangible Evidence of ROI for MDM

A general overview of the master data management concept may be necessary at the outset of the presentation, but eventually, shallow coverage of MDM attributes will fail to convince investors of the necessity of a buy-in. Instead, tangible evidence should be used to demonstrate MDM's significant return on investment. This is particularly true if the presentation includes an argument in favor of enterprise-wide master data management. Functional master data solutions tend to be less expensive in terms of front-end implementation; due to the higher expense of enterprise-wide commercial data systems, departments may require incredibly convincing arguments. Instead of rambling on about the benefits of an enterprise-wide approach, let the numbers speak for themselves.
Case studies typically prove most effective in the midst of MDM presentations, particularly if said case studies focus on similar life science organizations. Look for a case study that most closely mimics current objectives, and use it to demonstrate how enterprise-wide buy-in for MDM could deliver impressive results. Consider complementing any selected case study with industry-wide surveys or polls to demonstrate the overall efficacy of enterprise MDM.

4. Target ROI Arguments to Each Department

Although evidence of ROI is absolutely vital to enterprise-wide buy-in success, it is not prudent to replicate the same information for each department. The facts and figures that prove most compelling to one group of individuals may completely fail to capture the attention of other buy-in prospects. Instead, all business analytics should be examined carefully to determine whether they are actually capable of convincing specific departments of the viability of MDM. Although there may be some overlap for certain figures, it is more likely that the presentation will differ slightly for each targeted department. After all, each department is likely to have a different idea of what exactly constitutes an impressive return on investment.

5. Secure Investment From Senior Management

Though the cooperation of every department is necessary for the successful implementation of enterprise-wide master data management; if a particular department proves difficult to convince, it may be prudent to spend more time targeting senior management who could potentially override any objections from other departments. Likewise, all others could approve of a enterprise-wide master data management buy-in, but without the consent of senior management, the opportunity is lost.
Getting company-wide buy-in for your master data management strategy is imperative in order to streamline communicaiton and effectively make sense of patient data for commercial positioning.