Drug/Diagnostics Partnering Deals Flow: A Changing Landscape | Diaceutics

Drug/Diagnostics Partnering Deals Flow: A Changing Landscape

September 14th, 2015

Tessa Sandberg
Ewelina Golebiewska

Are in-house diagnostic companies a must-have or a nice-to-have when trying to achieve personalized medicine leadership? And are pharmaceutical companies moving away from companion diagnostics? These questions are examined by Tessa Sandberg and Ewelina Golebiewska of Diaceutics.

It cannot escape those with a keen interest in personalized medicine (PM) that there is a rising number of partnering deals between pharmaceutical and diagnostic (Dx) companies. As part of the PM Readiness Benchmark 2016 Report, Diaceutics analyses the partnering deals of pharma companies identified as being important personalized medicine players between 2005 and 2014. This brief insight highlights some of the early observations.

Partnering activities include the acquisition or investment in strategic agreements between pharma and Dx companies. The first highlight from the report is that the number of such deals in the personalized medicine field has significantly increased from 2005 to 2014 (Figure 1). We can expect even more deals in the next few years as pharma increases its interdependency on Dx companies, both for development and commercialization purposes. Our data shows that pharma partnering with Dx companies is today clearly the preferred business model. However, leaders in the field are setting a trend by acquiring their own in-house Dx companies. This is of course the case for Roche, which acquired Ventana and many other Dx companies since, but also for Janssen and Novartis. These are all companies considered by Diaceutics to be potential personalized medicine disruptors1. To become a personalized medicine leader, will an in-house Dx company be a must-have or just a different personalized medicine strategy?

1

Figure 1. A significant increase is observed in the number of personalized medicine partnering deals made by twelve of the companies considered by Diaceutics as leading players in the field.

Let’s focus on Roche for a second, the pharma company that has made the most personalized medicine partnering deals lately. Despite strengthening its in-house Dx capabilities, Roche still partners with many external Dx companies such as Qiagen and Epic Sciences. These deals emphasise Roche’s intention to expand beyond its in-house Dx capabilities. Meanwhile, Roche’s Ventana also partners with other companies such as AstraZeneca and Pfizer/Merck Serono in the immune-oncology field for the development of a PD-L1 assay. Given Roche’s position as a personalized medicine leader, should pharma consider partnering with Roche to be a good deal or a threat?

Secondly, pharma invests in developing single companion diagnostic (CDx) tests which play a central role in the ‘one drug – one biomarker – one test’ model. However, the analysis of the personalized medicine partnering data suggests a shift from this model to a patient-centred model where multi-biomarker panels will lead towards the choice of the drug. Specifically, there is a trend of pharma increasingly investing in bioinformatics in order to develop multi-gene panels. For instance, most of the twelve featured personalized medicine pharma companies partnered in the last five years with genomic profiling research companies, companies expert in next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms, NGS data management and interpretation. This insight is in line with an article by Bob Holland who challenges the ‘one drug – one test’ model. He doubts whether the model will survive much longer, as launching many different tests for the same indication will soon become too expensive and too complex2.

Thirdly, what we have discussed so far is mainly related to oncology and most partnering deals are performed in this area. However, other disease areas such as neurology, infectious diseases and cardiology have seen increased activity lately. Diaceutics’ data also shows an increase in the number of partnering deals beyond oncology from 2011 to 2014 – an indication that other disease areas are likely to become more prominent in the personalized medicine field.

To conclude, the data highlights that investing in strengthening in-house Dx capabilities is likely to be an important factor in achieving personalized medicine leadership. Time will tell whether acquiring in-house Dx development divisions is a must-have to achieve this goal. There are also clear trends in moving away from the ‘one drug – one biomarker – one test’ model towards multi-marker panels and in expanding pharma and Dx company partnering deals beyond oncology.

More details on pharma partnering deals are published in the Diaceutics PM Readiness Benchmark 2016 Report. Contact us at info@www.diaceutics.com for further information about this report.

1 Definition of PM disruptor:
Companies that have embraced model migration and are most likely to competitively reshape therapy areas via personalized medicine. The mindset of companies categorized as PM disruptors is “Personalized medicine is the future model and we are aligning to deliver on it” (Source: Diaceutics).

2 https://www.diaceutics.com/pm-partnering-pharma-retort

Blogs

View all blogs

Webinars & Podcasts

August 9th, 2018
Podcast: Oncology Patient Research
Why do we need to talk biomarkers with patients? Senior Director of Market Research at Diaceutics, Marianne Fillion, recently spearheaded an effort to gather insights directly from oncology patients to get an understanding of what they know about ...
April 20th, 2018
Podcast: PM Readiness Report 2018
Peter Keeling discusses the landscape and challenges for precision medicine, companion diagnostics, CDx or biomarker and conduit diagnostics are discussed including global laboratory test data analysis and forecasts for budget impact and value.
View all

Expert Insights

April 19th, 2018
The CMS National Coverage Decision on NGS
I. Introduction On March 16, 2018, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized a National Coverage Determination (NCD) that cove...
January 19th, 2018
What does the EU IVD Regulation mean for companion diagnostics and LDTs?
Dave Smart, PhD, Director at Diaceutics, discusses the introduction of the EU IVD Regulation. While it is considered a necessary step, the Regulati...
View all expert insights

Competitive Benchmarking Reports

March 16th, 2018
PM Readiness Report 2018 Summary
March 14th, 2017
Pharma Readiness for Diagnostic Integration 2017
View all reports

Case Studies

View all case studies

Publications

September 11th, 2018
BRAF mutation testing in melanoma – Poster presented at European Congress of Pathology 2018
BRAF mutation testing in melanoma: a study including Austria, Germany and UK, highlighting concordance for current technologies, and potential requirement of more sensitive technologies in future applications.
August 3rd, 2018
A Way Forward: Leveraging Advanced Diagnostic Testing to Unlock the Value of Precision Medicine
Read about how advanced diagnostic testing, ensuring that right patient gets the right therapy, at the right time, particularly with respect to therapies where the test result determines whether or not the therapy should be used (precision medicin...
View all publications
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
LinkedIn