To me, the main challenge in today’s biotech market is finding good quality assets with attractive valuations. There are definitely a lot of promising programs out there but valuations are often hard to justify as they reflect limited development risk and unrealistic commercial potential. From a risk/reward standpoint, it is hard to get excited about valuations of >$0.5B for companies before clinical proof of concept and $2-5B for clinically validated programs.
From that perspective, Xenon (XENE) is a market anomaly, with two promising clinical stage programs, a robust discovery platform and a market cap of just under $100M. Its two epilepsy programs, XEN1101 (Kv7 opener) and XEN901 (Nav1.6 inhibitor), are still in P1 but at the current levels the upside potential is too significant to ignore. Continue reading →
It is hard to overestimate the impact of the Novartis (NVS) /Avexis (AVXS) deal. So far, big biopharmas have had limited exposure to gene therapy and those that did get into the field focused on early-stage collaborations: Pfizer/Bamboo, Biogen/AGTC, Roche/ 4DMT, Abbvie/Voyager etc. This is understandable given the unique product profile gene therapies represent: One time irreversible treatment, lack of long term follow up and creative reimbursement models.
The $8.7B acquisition of Avexis, just three months after the deal with Spark (ONCE), makes Novartis the first pharma to embrace gene therapy as a commercial opportunity. The deals also make Novartis the undisputed gene therapy leader with (hopefully) two products on the market next year. Continue reading →
After being the industry’s graveyard for over 20 years, there is finally room for optimism in CNS (central nervous system) disorders. The void created in the field is now being filled by small companies which are using novel therapeutic (gene therapy, antisense, antibodies) and development (genetic validation in humans, biomarkers for patient selection) approaches. While clinical results are early and sparse they may represent the beginning of a new innovation cycle in CNS. Continue reading →
Readers of this blog know I have high hopes for gene therapy, a field with a checkered history but disruptive potential that may finally be ready for primetime. After two years of dramatic progress 2017 is shaping up to be a year of incremental progress, focusing more on establishing and validating results seen to date. Continue reading →
This year’s ASCO marks a second year in a row of relatively uneventful meetings, with very few groundbreaking or practice-changing data. Just like last year’s meeting, there were too many “me too” drugs targeting the same validated targets while results for truly novel MOAs were mostly underwhelming or immature. This stagnation is particularly troubling in light of the huge budgets the industry is pouring into oncology drug development, which used to be a highly capital-efficient sector.
Looking at the different vertical segments, stagnation is apparent across the board with some exception with few kinase inhibitors and BCMA CARs. Continue reading →
Exelixis (EXEL) continues to look very strong after hitting a 15-year high on Friday, which is never a bad point in time to realize some gains. While I still view Cabometyx as the most effective agent ever approved in renal cancer (even better than Opdivo), a valuation of $5.1B seems to fully capture the current label. Continue reading →
After a two-month break here is a recap of key highlights from the September/October time frame. On the menu today: PD-1 controversies at ESMO 2016, Exelixis’ (EXEL) launch in renal cancer, gene therapy data from Abeona (ABEO), long awaited update from Esperion (ESPR) and a positive surprise from Seattle Genetics (SGEN).
ESMO 2016 – Merck wins by a landslide (for now…)
While ESMO is typically secondary in importance to ASCO, this year’s meeting overshadowed its US counterpart (which was relatively quiet to begin with…), generating big headlines in the PD-1 arena. Continue reading →
After a long summer break it is time to review recent events and update the portfolio. As far as clinical readouts go, my portfolio had a brutal summer with one complete P3 failure from Array Biopharma (ARRY), a mixed data set from Aurinia (AUPH) and a win from SAGE (SAGE) that resulted in limited share appreciation. This was offset by strong performance from Exelixis (EXEL), my biggest holding which is up 48% quarter to date.
For the remainder of 2016 I plan to gradually increase exposure to gene therapy, which I hope will become one of the industry’s primary growth drivers in the coming years. In parallel, as I am still pessimistic about the biotech field in general (R&D productivity, pricing, biosimilars…), I intend to keep my short ETFs and a significant cash position. Continue reading →
Despite bouncing off a 2-year low, biotech is still an unpopular sector and investors are rightfully concerned about its near-term prospects. Recent drug failures, growing pricing pressure and the potential impact of biosimilars all contribute to the negative sentiment, but the main problem is the lack of growth drivers for the remainder of 2016 (and potentially 2017). Continue reading →
After last week’s pessimistic post, this week I am focusing on potential catalysts in 2016 that could improve sentiment towards biotech as a sector.
As if to remind us late stage trials don’t always fail, last week saw positive news from three different programs, all of which are antibodies in non-oncology indications. Regeneron (REGN) and its partner Sanofi (SNY) announced excellent data in atopic dermatitis, Alder (ALDR) reported positive results in a P2b in migraine and Pfizer (PFE) had positive P3 data for its PCSK9 program.
Below are four additional clinical data readouts that (if positive) may serve as important catalysts. Continue reading →