Pharmacogenomics has disappointed advocates who saw the opportunity to apply a discovery tool to the near-term goal of increasing approval chances and marketability for late-stage and marketed compounds. In return, they hoped to take a percentage of the highest-cost segment of the pharmaceutical budget. But Big Pharma is by and large not using pharmacogenomics for late-stage and marketed compounds: senior executives don't believe there's enough evidence it works and are afraid of limiting the marketability of the products by segmenting broad target populations into niches. Some also worry about uncovering potential side-effects that non-pharmacogenomic trials wouldn't reveal. Nonetheless, pharmacogenomics has made it to Big Pharma: most companies, for example, are banking samples from clinical trials to be pharmacogenomically tested retrospectively, thereby informing future trials. Not that this means the pharmacogenomics specialists will be able to sign high-value deals with the commercial side of drug companies, who believe that pharmacogenomic analysis is available from a number of sources, including internal ones, and feel they own the key assets for creating meaningful programs: compounds and patient samples. Instead, pharmacogenomics will find its place first as a discovery technology, integrated with other methods for finding, validating and prioritizing targets. That means that to succeed selling pharmacogenomics, biotechs will have to combine their pharmacogenomic assets with other discovery technologies, perhaps through mergers. An alternative: use their technologies to find drug products that they can themselves develop, perhaps later out-licensing them.
by Roger Longman
Amidst the hail of falling biotech stocks, one particular segment appears most disappointing because of its revolutionary promise: pharmacogenomics. Theoretically,...
Join thousands of industry professionals who rely on In Vivo for daily insights
Already a subscriber?
A look at Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and other companies' late-stage clinical studies of GLP-1 drugs in indications ranging from neurodegeneration to oncology, and alcoholic liver disease to autoimmune conditions.
Metsera CEO Whit Bernard applies an unconventional leadership philosophy to develop next-generation obesity therapeutics, including monthly GLP-1 injections and oral peptides.
A Q&A with DeAnn Smith, partner and co-chair of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Proceedings Practice Group at law firm Foley Hoag.
Advanced AI is revolutionizing sales enablement by addressing training gaps and performance challenges. Used correctly, it can help to bridge the sales-marketing divide, accelerate ramp-up times and provide managers with data-driven insights.
Devika Wood, CEO of Brain+, explains the importance of developing health tech solutions for dementia and the growing need to both raise awareness and improve overall access to nondrug interventions like CST.
In a challenging funding environment for biopharma, strategic dealmaking has become a critical growth engine. In Vivo explores what it truly takes to navigate high-stakes acquisitions and partnerships, drawing on insights from seasoned industry leaders.
While the adoption of most favored nation drug pricing in the US stands to affect Japanese biopharma firms now heavily reliant on this market, it might also present an opportunity for pricing and policy reforms at home.
