medigraphic.com
ISSN 1527-3172 (Electronic)

2020, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

MEDICC Review 2020; 22 (1)

Role of Business Models in Funding the Biotech Industry:

Blanco-García E

Language: English
References: 25
Page: 11-16
PDF size: 144.43 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Forty-three years after it was founded, with billions of dollars invested, the global biotech industry is still not positioned as a mature low-risk sector for the international investor community. Despite the clear commercial success of a number of leading companies and overall growth of the industry’s revenues, most biotech companies are not profi table and many fail to overcome the formidable barrier constituted by the high cost of the sector’s research and development. However, over the last four years, visible signs of change have appeared, which could be harbingers of an approaching turning point in this trend. This article analyzes the historic background of the biotech industry’s business models and corporate structures, as well as their impact on the industry’s fi nancial framework. It examines recent changes implemented by the sector’s main actors—including young startups, venture capital funds and big pharma companies—to mitigate fi nancial risk associated with development of new biotechnology products. Finally, it discusses the challenges and opportunities that these tendencies entail for Cuban biotechnology development and proposes adoption of business policies more tolerant of the fi nancial risk inherent in this sector, as a condition for attracting venture capital.


REFERENCES

  1. Walsh G. Biopharmaceutical benchmarks 2018. Nat Biotechnol. 2018 Dec 6;36(12):1136–45.

  2. Evens R, Kaitin K. The evolution of biotechnology and its impact on health care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015 Feb;34(2):210–9.

  3. Thakor RT, Anaya N, Zhang Y, Vilanilam C, Siah KW, Wong CH, et al. Just how good an investment is the biopharmaceutical sector? Nat Biotechnol. 2017 Dec;35(12):1149–57.

  4. Pisano GP. Can science be a business? Lessons from biotech. Harv Bus Rev. 2006 Oct;84(10):114–24, 150.

  5. Stern S. Incentives and focus in university and industrial research: the case of synthetic insulin. In: Rosenberg N, Gelijns AC, Dawkins H, editors. Sources of Medical Technology: Universities and Industry. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 1995. p. 157–88.

  6. Schiff L, Murray F. Biotechnology fi nancing dilemmas and the role of special purpose entities. Nat Biotechnol. 2004 Mar;22(3):271–7.

  7. Ford D, Nelsen B. The view beyond venture capital. Nat Biotechnol. 2014 Jan;32(1):15–23.

  8. EY.com. Biotechnology Report 2017. Beyond borders: staying the course [Internet]. London: Ernst &Young; 2017 [cited 2019 Mar 19]. 100 p. Available from: https://www.ey.com/Publica tion/vwLUAssets/ey-biotechnology-report-2017 -beyond-borders-staying-the-course/$FILE/ ey-biotechnology-report-2017-beyond-borders -staying-the-course.pdf

  9. Prasad V, Mailankody S. Research and development spending to bring a single cancer drug to market and revenues after approval. JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Nov 1;177(11):1569–75.

  10. Paul SM, Mytelka DS, Dunwiddie CT, Persinger CC, Munos BH, Lindborg SR, et al. How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry’s grand challenge. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010 Mar;9(3):203–14.

  11. Thomas DW, Burns J, Audette J, Carroll A, Dow-Hygelund C, Hay M. Clinical development success rates 2006–2015. San Diego: Biomedtracker; 2016 Jun. 28 p.

  12. Wong CH, Siah KW, Lo AW. Estimation of clinical trial success rates and related parameters. Biostatistics. 2019 Apr 1;20(2):273–86.

  13. Morrison C, Lähteenmäki R. Public biotech in 2017-the numbers. Nat Biotechnol. 2018 Jul 6;36(7):576–84.

  14. Morrison C, Lahteenmaki R. Public biotech 2018-the numbers. Nat Biotechnol. 2019 Jul;37(7):714–21.

  15. Huggett B. Bringing up baby. Nat Biotechnol. 2018 May 9;36(5):393–401.

  16. Kumar-Sinha C, Chinnaiyan AM. Precision oncology in the age of integrative genomics. Nat Biotechnol. 2018 Jan 10;36(1):46–60.

  17. McCammon MG, Pio E, Barakat S, Vyakarnam S. Corporate venture capital and Cambridge. Nat Biotechnol. 2014 Oct;32(10):975–8.

  18. Times TNY. Roche Agrees to Buy Genentech for $46.8 Billion. The New York Times [Internet]. 2009 Mar 12 [cited 2019 Mar 19]; World Business. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/ business/worldbusiness/13drugs.html.

  19. Grupo de las Industrias Biotecnológica y Farmacéutica de Cuba. BioCubaFarma [Internet]. Havana: BioCubaFarma, c2019 [cited 2019 Jun 4]. Available from: https://www.biocubafarma.cu. Spanish.

  20. World Health Organization [Internet]. Geneva: World Helath Organization; c2019. Publications. Cuban experience with local production of medicines, technology transfer and improving access to health [Internet]. Geneva: World Helath Organization; 2015. 80 p. Available from: https://www .who.int/phi/publications/cuban_experience _local_prod_medstech_transfer/en/

  21. Ministry of Foreign Affairs (CU). Informe de Cuba sobre la Resolución 73/8 de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas. “Necesidad de poner fi n al bloqueo económico, comercial y fi nanciero impuesto por los Estados Unidos de América contra Cuba”. Havana: Ministry of Foreign Affairs (CU); [Internet]. 2019 Jul [cited 2019 Nov 6]. Available from: http://www.minrex.gob.cu/sites/ default/files/2019-09/Cuba%20vs%20Bloqueo .pdf. Spanish.

  22. Alemayehu C, Mitchell G, Nikles J. Barriers for conducting clinical trials in developing countries— a systematic review. Int J Equity Health. 2018 Mar 22;17(1):37.

  23. García R, Araujo DV. The regulation of biosimilars in Latin America. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2016 Mar;18(3):16.

  24. Ben-Joseph O. Where the bodies lie. Nat Biotechnol. 2016 Sep 8;34(9):909–11.

  25. Nasdaq [Internet]. New York: Nasdaq; c2019. Markets Equillium prices IPO at $14, the low end of the range; 2018 Oct 12 [cited 2019 Jun 21]. Available from: https://www.nasdaq.com/article/ equillium-prices-ipo-at-14-the-low-end-of-the -range-cm1036324




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com