Pharmacogenomics has disappointed advocates who saw the opportunity to apply a discovery tool to the near-term goal of increasing approval chances and marketability for late-stage and marketed compounds. In return, they hoped to take a percentage of the highest-cost segment of the pharmaceutical budget. But Big Pharma is by and large not using pharmacogenomics for late-stage and marketed compounds: senior executives don't believe there's enough evidence it works and are afraid of limiting the marketability of the products by segmenting broad target populations into niches. Some also worry about uncovering potential side-effects that non-pharmacogenomic trials wouldn't reveal. Nonetheless, pharmacogenomics has made it to Big Pharma: most companies, for example, are banking samples from clinical trials to be pharmacogenomically tested retrospectively, thereby informing future trials. Not that this means the pharmacogenomics specialists will be able to sign high-value deals with the commercial side of drug companies, who believe that pharmacogenomic analysis is available from a number of sources, including internal ones, and feel they own the key assets for creating meaningful programs: compounds and patient samples. Instead, pharmacogenomics will find its place first as a discovery technology, integrated with other methods for finding, validating and prioritizing targets. That means that to succeed selling pharmacogenomics, biotechs will have to combine their pharmacogenomic assets with other discovery technologies, perhaps through mergers. An alternative: use their technologies to find drug products that they can themselves develop, perhaps later out-licensing them.
by Roger Longman
Amidst the hail of falling biotech stocks, one particular segment appears most disappointing because of its revolutionary promise: pharmacogenomics. Theoretically,...
Join thousands of industry professionals who rely on In Vivo for daily insights
Already a subscriber?
During Q2, biopharma merger and acquisition deal value reached $24.6bn and drew in $60.7bn in potential deal value from alliances. Device company M&A values reached $223m, while in vitro diagnostics and research tools players’ M&A activity totaled $802m.
Pharma leaders are shifting from AI pilots to enterprise-scale deployment, favoring external partnerships for efficiency gains while maintaining tight control over sensitive clinical data.
The biotech funding landscape is undergoing a fundamental shift. With traditional VC becoming increasingly cautious and selective, industry executives are exploring new avenues for capital. Conversely, this evolution may ultimately benefit the sector's long-term sustainability.
In Vivo spoke with Edward Ahn, CEO of Medipost, a Korean company that has developed stem cell therapies from cord blood, on how they are working across regulatory markets to provide a novel treatment for degenerative diseases.
Entrepreneurialism is in the blood of Israel’s medtech innovators, but in a changing medtech world, the local ecosystem must address funding gaps and manufacturing and infrastructure needs. So says Ruti Alon, experienced Israeli medtech leader, investor and co-chair of the Biomed Israel conference.
During Q2, biopharma merger and acquisition deal value reached $24.6bn and drew in $60.7bn in potential deal value from alliances. Device company M&A values reached $223m, while in vitro diagnostics and research tools players’ M&A activity totaled $802m.
Facing rising costs and tighter regulations, PBMs and insurers are accelerating the shift to value-based drug coverage, demanding stronger proof of therapeutic and economic benefit from pharma.
