Innovation in Deal-Making

OVERVIEW

Bibliography

The authors insights and recommendations
Oncology deal-making volume has especially intensified in recent years
Up-front and total deal value averages have generally grown
Bibliography

The authors insights and recommendations
Major deal-making events have changed the landscape
Diabetes deal-making is focused at the later stages of drug development
Top pharma companies are innovating through disease management and digital health
Future deals may focus on patient stratification
Few, but significant, diabetes bolt-on acquisitions have taken place
Bibliography

The authors insights and recommendations
Neuroscience is now a therapeutic whitespace
Pain and Alzheimer’s disease remain big focus areas in neurology deal-making
Out-licensing in neurology can bring about a lot of value
Top 20 pharma is innovating around genome sequencing and biomarker discovery
Bolt-on acquisitions have brought in eventual successes and failures
Bibliography

The authors insights and recommendations
Deals market by volume is comparatively smaller, but growing
Deal-makers are evaluating novel autoimmune targets and drug classes through partnerships and acquisitions
Existing leaders in the market look to deal-making to maintain leadership
In-licensing is not concentrated on any one phase
Autoimmune disease-focused acquisitions are few in number
Bibliography

The authors insights and recommendations
Future key drivers in oncology care are reflected in deal-making
Themes of precision medicine and immuno-oncology are reflected in key bolt-on acquisitions
Dramatic growth seen in oncology partnership deal volume
Top 20 pharma collaborations with big data companies likely to continue
Bibliography

The authors insights and recommendations
Revenue depends on externalized products
In diabetes, internal R&D is driving revenue rather than externalization

Methodology
Bibliography

Figure 1: Aggregate deal volume by therapy area, 2008–17
Figure 2: Deal-making volume by therapy area, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
Figure 3: Annual deal-making volume by therapy area, 2008–17
Figure 4: Average up-front payments by therapy area, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
Figure 5: Average total deal values by therapy area, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
Figure 6: Average proportion of total deal value paid up front by therapy area, 2008–17
Figure 7: Timeline of major deals in the diabetes market, 2008–17
Figure 8: Diabetes in-licensing and out-licensing volume, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
Figure 9: Average deal value metrics in diabetes in-licensing, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
Figure 10: Demand for marketed diabetes drugs in deal-making is growing, 2008–17
Figure 11: Sanofi leads the most active in-licensers in diabetes deal-making, 2008–17
Figure 12: Select deal-making around new mechanisms in diabetes and new approaches with standard of care
Figure 13: Diabetes deal-making may center on stratifying patients for more targeted treatment
Figure 14: Select key bolt-on acquisitions in diabetes, 2008–17
Figure 15: Neurology in-licensing deals by phase, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
Figure 16: Average deal value metrics in neurology in-licensing, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
Figure 17: Neurology and pain deal volume, 2008–17
Figure 18: Neurology deal-making by indication, 2008–17
Figure 19: US pain market sales, by drug type, 2015–20
Figure 20: Pain deal-making volume, by pain type, 2008–17
Figure 21: Volume of neuropathic pain deals decreases, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
Figure 22: Migraine market is poised for growth, and is attractive to deal-makers
Figure 23: Small proportion of rare CNS disease deal-making, 2008–17
Figure 24: In-licensing versus out-licensing in neurology, 2008–17
Figure 25: Most active neurology out-licensers, 2008–17
Figure 26: Select key bolt-on acquisitions in neurology and pain, 2008–17
Figure 27: Autoimmune disease in-licensing and out-licensing volume, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
Figure 28: Average deal value metrics in autoimmune disease in-licensing, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
Figure 29: Autoimmune disease deal-making by indication, 2008–17
Figure 30: Top in-licensers in autoimmune disease deal-making, 2008–17
Figure 31: Autoimmune disease in-licensing deals by phase, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
Figure 32: Select key bolt-on acquisitions in autoimmune disease, 2008–17
Figure 33: Future key drivers in oncology care are reflected in deal-making
Figure 34: Oncology bolt-on acquisition volume and value, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
Figure 35: Roche leads the top 20 pharma peer set in oncology bolt-on acquisition volume, 2008–17
Figure 36: Oncology in-licensing volume, 2008–17
Figure 37: Oncology in-licensing average values, 2008–17
Figure 38: Precision medicine and immuno-oncology are important components of oncology partnerships, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
Figure 39: Oncology in-licensing volume by phase at deal signing, 2008–12 versus 2013–17
Figure 40: Top in-licensers in oncology deal-making, 2008–17
Figure 41: Oncology deals by indication, 2008–17
Figure 42: External versus internal product revenue for top 20 pharma peer set: all therapy areas, 2002–26
Figure 43: Average per-drug revenue is higher for externalized products, 2002–26
Figure 44: Diabetes therapies: external versus internal product revenue for top 20 pharma peer set, 2002–26
Figure 45: Diabetes therapies: higher average per-drug revenue for internally developed products, 2002–26

Table 1: The top 20 pharmaceutical company peer set
Table 2: Key therapy areas in deal-making
Table 3: Select ongoing Alzheimer's disease deals involving top 20 pharma companies, 2008–17
Table 4: Novel targets and product classes in autoimmune disease deal-making, 2008–17
Table 5: Select key oncology acquisitions focused on immuno-oncology and precision medicine, 2008–17
Table 6: Select recent collaborations between top 20 pharma and big data companies in oncology
Table 7: The top 20 pharmaceutical company peer set
Table 8: Key therapy areas in deal-making