+353-1-416-8900REST OF WORLD
+44-20-3973-8888REST OF WORLD
1-917-300-0470EAST COAST U.S
1-800-526-8630U.S. (TOLL FREE)


From R&D Investment to Externalization: Where is the Pharma Industry Maximizing Value?

  • ID: 4421368
  • Report
  • June 2017
  • Region: Global
  • 51 pages
  • Datamonitor Healthcare
1 of 2

Enquire about COVID-19 updates for this product.

Enquire Now


Pharmaceutical companies are attempting to maximize value from all angles, including internal investment in R&D and externalization via deal-making. The growth in these two models has had an impact on both revenue derived from internally developed products, as well as externalized drugs.

This report is a written adaptation of a webinar presented in May 2017, titled “From R&D Investment to Externalization: Where is the Pharma Industry Maximizing Value?.

Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
2 of 2

  • Bibliography
  • Overall R&D Investment trends
  • Peer set R&D investment trends
  • R&D productivity
  • Bibliography
  • Alliance volume and value
  • In-licensing and out-licensing
  • Phase trends
  • Therapy area trends
  • Bibliography
  • Higher volume of unpartnered drugs, but partnered candidates are growing faster
  • Externalized revenue growth due to M&A, co-developed drugs, and acquired products
  • Peer set externalized revenue trends
  • Higher average per-drug revenue expected for externalized products
  • Bibliography
  • Scope
  • Methodology
List of Figures
Figure 1: Big increase in R&D spending historically, but slight decline in forecast period, 2006-20
Figure 2: Revenues increasing, but R&D as proportion slightly decreases, 2006-20
Figure 3: Phase status of pipeline stability, with exception of Phase I, 2011 versus 2016
Figure 4: Big Pharma outspends Mid Pharma and Japan Pharma in R&D, 2006-20
Figure 5: Average R&D spend per peer set company, 2006-20
Figure 6: Roche has been Big Pharma’s biggest R&D spender, 2006-14
Figure 7: Roche also leads the forecast period, but most companies will experience declining R&D spend, 2015-20
Figure 8: Mid Pharma prescription revenue and R&D spending growing at faster rates than other peer sets, 2006-20
Figure 9: Allergan and Celgene stand out in Mid Pharma R&D spend, 2006-20
Figure 10: Japan Pharma R&D spending to decline over forecast period, 2006-20
Figure 11: Takeda is driver behind R&D growth in Japan Pharma, 2006-20
Figure 12: R&D productivity: new product launches, 2011-15
Figure 13: R&D productivity: ROI index by peer set, 2011-15
Figure 14: R&D productivity: ROI index by company, 2011-15
Figure 15: Big Pharma deals are increasing, with 2015 as a possible outlier, 2012-16
Figure 16: Licensing value took a dive in 2016, 2012-16
Figure 17: Healthy mixture of in-licensing and out-licensing, 2012-16
Figure 18: Big Pharma in-licensing deal volume by phase, 2012-16
Figure 19: Preclinical and Phase I in-licensing deals increase, 2012-16
Figure 20: Oncology dominates Big Pharma deal volume, 2012-16
Figure 21: Oncology also significantly overshadows in deal value, 2012-16
Figure 22: Big Pharma and Mid Pharma immuno-oncology deal volume, 2012-16
Figure 23: Big Pharma and Mid Pharma immuno-oncology deal value, 2012-16
Figure 24: Immuno-oncology deal-making landscape includes multiple players, 2012-16
Figure 25: Immuno-oncology deals are targeting a wide variety of indications, 2012-16
Figure 26: Combinations are driving immuno-oncology deals, 2012-16
Figure 27: PD-L1 target significantly represented in immuno-oncology collaborations, 2012-16
Figure 28: Consistently more unpartnered drugs in pipeline, 2011 versus 2016
Figure 29: Proportion of partnered and unpartnered drugs varies at peer set level, 2011 versus 2016
Figure 30: Revenue segmentations
Figure 31: Externally sourced products are increasingly representing more in revenue, 2005-24
Figure 32: External R&D revenue grew at a faster rate than internal R&D, 2005-24
Figure 33: Co-developed and acquired drugs are driving growth, 2005-24
Figure 34: Proportion of external sales to shift for some Big Pharma companies, 2005-24
Figure 35: About half of Mid Pharma companies to see smaller proportion of external sales, 2005-24
Figure 36: Most Japan Pharma companies will increase proportions of external revenue, 2005-24
Figure 37: Average per-drug revenue is higher for external than internal R&D products, 2005-24
Figure 38: Average external per-drug revenue by peer set, 2005-24
Figure 39: Average internal per-drug revenue by peer set, 2005-24

List of Tables
Table 1: Peer sets*
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
3 of 2