Cover Image
市場調查報告書

大型製藥公司的授權趨勢:2011∼2015年

Big Pharma Licensing Trends, 2011-15

出版商 Datamonitor Healthcare 商品編碼 363585
出版日期 內容資訊 英文 88 Pages
商品交期: 最快1-2個工作天內
價格
Back to Top
大型製藥公司的授權趨勢:2011∼2015年 Big Pharma Licensing Trends, 2011-15
出版日期: 2016年02月23日 內容資訊: 英文 88 Pages
簡介

2011∼2015年,全球16家大型製藥公司的銷售額超越100億美元,年複合成長率成為10%。大型製藥公司的引入授權及對外授權契約的近3分之2是有關癌症治療,癌症免疫療法成為引入授權的重要牽引因素。

本報告提供大型製藥公司的授權趨勢的相關調查,大型製藥公司的引入授權與對外授權趨勢,促進對外授權的治療領域與交易結構相關彙整。

摘要整理

關鍵和全數

  • 交易額增加但大型製藥公司的整體佔有率小
  • 大型製藥公司佔交易額的大半
  • 2014年和2015年,是大型製藥公司的交易突出的期間
  • 參考文獻

企業分析與案例研究

  • AstraZeneca在交易金額領先
  • Johnson & Johnson簽署主要的癌症相關合約,取著技術創新的倡議
  • Roche持續在癌症領域的氣勢,不過,交易上顯示其他治療領域的重要性
  • Pfizer的引入授權由於著重對外授權而變化
  • 整體上,對外授權增加42%Amgen和Eli Lilly平分對外授權
  • 參考文獻

治療領域分析

  • 癌症獨佔大型製藥公司的交易額
  • 感染疾病相關契約減少但有反彈的可能性
  • 內分泌,代謝,遺傳基因疾病加速
  • 在夥伴關係契約額中癌症領先
  • 癌症是對外授權契約的中心
  • 參考文獻

交易經濟學

  • Johnson & Johnson 在大型製藥公司的交易學中居首位
  • 交易相關付款額整體增加
  • 平均交易額增加
  • 交易額的高比率至今仍在里程碑中停滞
  • 2011∼2015年有超過240億的交易

階段分析

  • 早期階段候補壟斷夥伴關係
  • 已上市藥物和第二階段候補領導預付款付款總額
  • 第二階段及已上市藥物更高的平均預付款額

交易的各地區趨勢

  • 各地區趨勢
  • 參考文獻

交易結構

  • 研究開發交易結構最常見的內容
  • 選擇為基礎的交易減少
  • 參考文獻

附錄

目錄
Product Code: DMKC0152639

Key to predicting future trends in Big Pharma deal-making is reviewing the peer set's most recent activity. Between 2011 and 2015, Big Pharma - a peer set of approximately 16 firms across the world with large R&D and sales organizations, and sales valued at $10bn or more - signed over 1,100 drug-focused deals, growing at a compound annual growth rate of 10%. Overall, Big Pharma represented the majority of the monetary value of all biopharma partnerships: the peer group was responsible for $133bn of deal-making during the five-year period versus the $254bn in all comparable biopharma alliances (including the Big Pharma peer set).

As of mid-2015, Big Pharma companies had in the pipeline for cancer approximately 279 candidates, which is well over two times that of any other therapeutic area. This was reflected in deal-making; between 2011 and 2015, nearly two-thirds of Big Pharma's in- and out-licensing deals were in oncology, and immuno-oncology was the key driver of oncology in-licensing.

This report addresses the following questions:

  • Who are the top Big Pharma dealmakers by volume, and how does their in-licensing activity compare with out-licensing?
  • How has the emergence of immuno-oncology affected overall oncology dealmaking and values?
  • Besides oncology, what therapeutic areas are driving Big Pharma dealmaking and why?
  • What therapeutic areas and deal structures are driving Big Pharma out-licensing?
  • At what stages of development does the Big Pharma peer set tend to partner, and what are the average payments per phase?

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

KEY POINTS AND OVERALL TOTALS

  • 1. Deal volume increased but Big Pharma's overall share was small
  • 2. Big Pharma represented the majority of deal-making spend
  • 3. 2014 and 2015 were stand-out years in Big Pharma deal-making
  • 4. Bibliography

COMPANY ANALYSIS AND CASE STUDIES

  • 5. AstraZeneca was the leading dealmaker by overall volume within the Big Pharma peer set
  • 6. Johnson & Johnson signed key cancer deals and formed an innovation initiative
  • 7. Roche continued oncology momentum but deal-making showed importance of other therapeutic areas
  • 8. Pfizer's in-licensing fluctuated while out-licensing efforts increased
  • 9. Overall, out-licensing increased by 42% and Amgen and Eli Lilly evenly split in- and outlicensing
  • 10. Bibliography

THERAPY AREA ANALYSIS

  • 11. Oncology dominated Big Pharma deal volume
  • 12. Infectious disease agreements declined, but there is potential for a turnaround
  • 13. Endocrine, metabolic, and genetic disorders gained speed
  • 14. Oncology also led in terms of partnership dollar values
  • 15. Oncology was also the focus of most out-licensing deals
  • 16. Bibliography

DEAL ECONOMICS

  • 17. Johnson & Johnson was the top dealmaker by dollars spent within the Big Pharma peer set
  • 18. Payment metrics on deals generally increased
  • 19. Average deal values increased
  • 20. A higher proportion of deal value was still locked up in milestones
  • 21. There were more than two-dozen billion-dollar deals between 2011 and 2015

PHASE ANALYSIS

  • 22. Early-stage candidates dominated partnerships
  • 23. Marketed drugs and Phase II candidates led in aggregate up-front payments
  • 24. Phase II and marketed drugs tended to have higher average up-fronts

GEOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF DEAL-MAKING

  • 25. Regional deal-making took off
  • 26. Bibliography

DEAL STRUCTURES

  • 27. R&D was the most common component of deal structures
  • 28. Option-based deal-making decreased
  • 29. Bibliography

APPENDIX

  • 30. About the author
  • 31. Scope
  • 32. Methodology
Back to Top