+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)

PRINTER FRIENDLY

Gene Therapy Deal-Making Trends, 2012-17

  • ID: 4489136
  • Report
  • February 2018
  • Region: Global
  • 62 pages
  • Datamonitor Healthcare

Enquire about COVID-19 updates for this product.

Enquire Now

FEATURED COMPANIES

  • Bamboo Therapeutics
  • Biogen
  • Gilead
  • Pfizer
  • Vertex
  • MORE
A robust deal-making market has enabled gene therapy drug development to be advanced and adequately funded through alliances and financings, and in many cases has provided exits for investors through acquisitions. The volume of deals in each of these transaction types has experienced some fluctuation during 2012–17, but generally is on an upward trend as companies aim to capitalize on a market that has been reinvigorated with the strong scientific and commercial argument for cell and gene therapies, particularly chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies.

Among acquisitions, there was virtually an even split between targets focused on in vivo gene therapies, or gene therapies, and those concentrating on ex vivo cell and gene therapies. However, large pharmaceutical buyers were more likely to acquire in vivo therapy developers, reflective more of the disease focus of the target company rather than the overall gene therapy development strategies of the acquirers. Alliances, too, did not show a preference for one approach over the other, but gene therapy companies were more active in aggregate financing than cell and gene therapy players, possibly an effect of the emergence only within the last few years of start-ups founded around CAR-T and other cell and gene therapies.

The broad field of gene therapy may be broken down into two main categories: gene therapy, which mainly involves the in vivo administration of genes, packaged into viral or non-viral vectors, directly into cells inside of the body; or cell and gene therapy, which comprises the ex vivo genetic modification of cells. Certain datasets within the report are split in this manner.
The sources of the deals data throughout the report are the authors Medtrack and Strategic Transactions.
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown

FEATURED COMPANIES

  • Bamboo Therapeutics
  • Biogen
  • Gilead
  • Pfizer
  • Vertex
  • MORE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

GENE THERAPY DEAL-MAKING ACROSS THE INDUSTRY
Deal volume is generally increasing, supported by alliances
Outlier transactions, especially in acquisitions, have contributed to peaks in gene therapy values in certain years

GENE THERAPY ACQUISITIONS
There has been a steady increase in the volume of gene therapy acquisitions
Acquisitions have reached multibillion-dollar values, thanks to outlier transactions
Both gene therapies, and cell and gene therapies, are the subjects of acquisitions
Besides oncology, another active therapy area target in acquisitions is blood diseases
Bibliography

GENE THERAPY ALLIANCES
Aggregate value for alliances has reached $30bn
As time goes on, upfront payments represent a lower proportion of total deal value
The top 10 deals captured a large part of the total value
Over time, cell and gene therapies have become more of a focus in partnerships
Oncology gene therapies are subject of the most alliances
Bellicum, a CAR-T developer, is the most active gene therapy in-licenser
Bibliography

GENE THERAPY FINANCINGS
Companies working in gene therapy have raised $14bn through various financing types
Gene therapy developers were more active in financing
Cell and gene therapy companies lead the top 10 grossing IPOs
Gene editing was well represented in top 10 gene therapy venture rounds
Bibliography

DEAL-MAKING CASE STUDIES IN GENE THERAPY
Pfizer commits to gene therapy with Bamboo Therapeutics
CAR-T is worth billions to Gilead
Biogen and the University of Pennsylvania form a lucrative industry/academic partnership
Vertex turns to gene editing as another way to extend its cystic fibrosis franchise
Bibliography

APPENDIX
Scope
Methodology

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Gene therapy deals by volume and deal type, 2012–17
Figure 2: Most gene therapy deal activity is through partnerships: proportion of gene therapy deal volume by deal type, 2012–17*
Figure 3: Gene therapy deals by value and deal type, 2012–17
Figure 4: Acquisitions in gene therapy represent the largest value: proportion of gene therapy deal value by deal type, 2012–17
Figure 5: Gene therapy acquisition volume and value, 2012–17*
Figure 6: Gene therapy acquisition volume by category, 2012–17*
Figure 7: Gene therapy acquisition volume proportion by gene therapy category, 2012–17*
Figure 8: Gene therapy acquisition volume by therapy area, 2012–17*
Figure 9: Gene therapy alliances volume and value, 2012–17*
Figure 10: Upfront payments are decreasing as a proportion of total value in gene therapy deals, 2012–17*
Figure 11: Upfront and total value averages on gene therapy deals, 2012–17*
Figure 12: Gene therapy alliances volume by category, 2012–17*
Figure 13: Cell and gene therapies are taking a greater share of alliances, 2012–17*
Figure 14: Gene therapy alliances volume by therapy area, 2012–17*
Figure 15: Annual gene therapy alliances volume by therapy area, 2012–17*
Figure 16: Gene therapy deals by therapy area and category, 2012–17*
Figure 17: Cell and gene therapies in oncology: alliances volume and value, 2012–17*
Figure 18: Leading companies in gene therapy in-licensing, 2012–17*
Figure 19: Big Pharma and Mid Pharma gene therapy in-licensing volume by category, 2012–17*
Figure 20: Gene therapy financings by volume, 2012–17*
Figure 21: Gene therapy financings by value, 2012–17*
Figure 22: Public offerings represent a smaller share in volume, but dominate the value in gene therapy, 2012–17*
Figure 23: Gene therapy average per financing values, 2012–17*
Figure 24: Gene therapy financing volume by category, 2012–17*
Figure 25: Gene therapy financing volume proportion by gene therapy category, 2012–17*
Figure 26: Public offering volume proportion by gene therapy category, 2012–17*
Figure 27: Private placement volume proportion by gene therapy category, 2012–17*
Figure 28: Pfizer and Bamboo Therapeutics: deal structure
Figure 29: Gilead and Kite Pharma: deal structure
Figure 30: Biogen and the University of Pennsylvania: deal structure
Figure 31: Vertex and CRISPR Therapeutics: deal structure

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Top 10 gene therapy acquisitions by value, 2012–17*
Table 2: Top 10 gene therapy alliances by value, 2012–17*
Table 3: Top 10 gene therapy IPOs, 2012–17*
Table 4: Top 10 gene therapy venture financings, 2012–17*
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
  • Pfizer
  • Vertex
  • Biogen
  • Bamboo Therapeutics
  • Gilead
Note: Product cover images may vary from those shown
Adroll
adroll