株式会社グローバルインフォメーション
TEL: 044-952-0102
表紙
市場調査レポート

大手医薬品企業によるライセンシング動向:2012-16年

Big Pharma Licensing Trends, 2012-16

発行 Datamonitor Healthcare 商品コード 498960
出版日 ページ情報 英文 95 Pages
納期: 即日から翌営業日
価格
本日の銀行送金レート: 1USD=113.24円で換算しております。
Back to Top
大手医薬品企業によるライセンシング動向:2012-16年 Big Pharma Licensing Trends, 2012-16
出版日: 2017年03月09日 ページ情報: 英文 95 Pages
概要

大手医薬品企業グループによる医薬品関連の契約件数は2012年から2016年にかけて12%のCAGR (年間複合成長率) で推移し、1,200件を超える規模を記録しました。

当レポートでは、大手医薬品企業によるライセンシング動向を調査し、大手医薬品企業グループの定義・構成、医薬品業界全体における主な動向、主要事業者の主な取り組み、契約件数・契約額の分析、疾患分野・開発フェーズ・地域別の動向などをまとめています。

エグゼクティブサマリー

要点・総規模

  • 取引件数は増加したが大手事業者の全体に占めるシェアは小さい
  • 大手事業者:取引額では大半を占める
  • 2014・2015年:大手事業者による取引が顕著であった
  • 文献

企業分析・ケーススタディ

  • AstraZeneca:大手事業者グループの中では取引件数で首位
  • Johnson & Johnson:癌関連の主要契約に署名・技術革新のイニシアチブを形成
  • Roche:癌分野で勢いを維持するが、他の疾患分野の重要性も示唆
  • Pfizer:インライセンシング・アウトライセンシングの変動
  • Merck & Co:インライセンシングで癌分野のリーダーとなる戦略を推進
  • 全体におけるアウトライセンシングの増加・Tevaが最大のシェアを獲得
  • 文献

疾患分野別の分析

  • 癌:取引件数で大手事業者が独占的立場
  • 内分泌系・代謝系・遺伝性疾患分野の取引が加速
  • 感染症:合意件数は減少したものの巻き返しの可能性はある
  • 癌:提携額においても主導的
  • 癌:ほとんどのアウトライセンシング契約の焦点となっている
  • 文献

取引の経済性

  • Sanofi:取引額で大手事業者グループの中で首位
  • Johnson & Johnson:10億ドル規模の契約で強力な位置付けに
  • AstraZeneca:高額な前払い金を支出
  • 平均取引額の増加、など

フェーズ分析

  • 初期候補薬が提携の主流
  • 第I・II相候補薬:前払い金総額で首位
  • 第I・II相薬:前払い金が高い傾向
  • 文献

契約取引の地域別内訳

  • 北米における成長
  • 文献

取引構造

  • R&D:もっとも一般的なコンポーネント
  • インライセンシング契約構造:フェーズによりさまざま
  • オプションベースの取引:盛り返す可能性もあり
  • 文献

付録

図表

目次
Product Code: DMKC0170516

Between 2012 and 2016, Big Pharma - a peer set of approximately 16 firms across the world with large R&D and sales organizations, and annual revenues in excess of $10bn - signed over 1,200 drug-focused deals, growing at a compound annual growth rate of 12%. The top five dealmakers in terms of volume were AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Roche, Pfizer, and Merck & Co. Overall, Big Pharma represented the majority of the monetary value of all biopharma partnerships: the peer group was responsible for $151bn in deal-making during the five-year period out of the $287bn in all comparable biopharma alliances (including the Big Pharma peer set).

As of 2016, Big Pharma companies had approximately 337 candidates in the pipeline for cancer, which is well over two times that of any other therapeutic area. This was reflected in the peer set's deal-making; between 2012 and 2016, about one-third of Big Pharma's in- and out-licensing deals were in oncology, and immuno-oncology was the key driver of oncology in-licensing. Big Pharma companies signed more alliances to bring early-stage candidates in-house than any other phase, and out-licensed more approved or marketed products. One-third of the total in-licensing deal volume involved regional partnering, while out-licensing was led by North American territories - namely the US - where development, commercialization, and research/discovery deal structures were more prominent than flat-out divestments. Both in- and out-licensing by Big Pharma reflected a collaborative nature, as development/co-development and research/discovery were the most commonly used deal structures in alliances.

The source for the deal data used in this report is Informa's Medtrack. In addition, Informa's Strategic Transactions was also referenced for background information on deals.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

KEY POINTS AND OVERALL TOTALS

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

COMPANY ANALYSIS AND CASE STUDIES

  • AstraZeneca was the leading dealmaker by overall volume within the Big Pharma peer set
  • Johnson & Johnson signed key cancer deals and formed an innovation initiative
  • Roche continued oncology momentum but deal-making showed importance of other therapeutic areas
  • Pfizer's in-licensing fluctuated while out-licensing efforts decreased
  • Merck & Co's in-licensing drives strategy to become oncology leader
  • Overall, out-licensing increased by 47% and Teva had the largest proportion in the peer set
  • Bibliography

THERAPY AREA ANALYSIS

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

DEAL ECONOMICS

  • Sanofi was the top dealmaker by dollars spent within the Big Pharma peer set
  • Johnson & Johnson's billion-dollar deals provided a strong position
  • AstraZeneca spent a large up-front sum
  • Payment metrics on deals generally increased
  • Average deal values increased
  • A higher proportion of deal value was still locked up in milestones
  • There were almost three-dozen billion-dollar deals between 2012 and 2016
  • Bibliography

PHASE ANALYSIS

  • Early-stage candidates dominated partnerships
  • Phase I and II candidates led in aggregate up-front payments
  • Phase I and II drugs tended to have higher average up-front payments
  • Bibliography

GEOGRAPHIC BREAKDOWN OF DEAL-MAKING

  • North American deal-making grew
  • Bibliography

DEAL STRUCTURES

  • R&D was the most common component of deal structures
  • In-licensing deal structure varied across phases
  • Option-based deal-making is possibly making a comeback
  • Bibliography

APPENDIX

  • Scope
  • Methodology

LIST OF FIGURES

  • Figure 1: Big Pharma's deal-making volume, 2012-16
  • Figure 2: Big Pharma's deal values and share of overall deal-making value, 2012-16
  • Figure 3: Big Pharma deal-making value ranges, 2012-16
  • Figure 4: Big Pharma's deal volume, by company, 2012-16
  • Figure 5: Big Pharma's licensing deal volume CAGR, 2012-16
  • Figure 6: AstraZeneca's deal-making activity: shrinking divide between in-licensing and out-licensing, 2012-16
  • Figure 7: AstraZeneca's in-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 8: AstraZeneca's out-licensing deals by deal type, 2012-16
  • Figure 9: AstraZeneca's out-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 10: Johnson & Johnson's deal-making activity: out-licensing picks up, 2012-16
  • Figure 11: Johnson & Johnson Innovation in-licensing deals by volume, 2012-16
  • Figure 12: Johnson & Johnson Innovation in-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 13: Johnson & Johnson's in-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 14: Roche's deal-making activity: in-licensing increased while out-licensing decreased, 2012-16
  • Figure 15: Roche's in-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 16: Roche's out-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 17: Pfizer's deal-making activity, 2012-16
  • Figure 18: Pfizer's in-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 19: Pfizer's out-licensing deals by deal type, 2012-16
  • Figure 20: Pfizer's out-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 21: Merck & Co's deal-making activity, 2012-16
  • Figure 22: Merck & Co's in-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 23: Merck & Co's out-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 24: Big Pharma's out-licensing increased but is still outpaced by in-licensing, 2012-16
  • Figure 25: Big Pharma's in-licensing/out-licensing activity by company, 2012-16
  • Figure 26: Eli Lilly's out-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 27: Big Pharma's in-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 28: Big Pharma's deal volume by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 29: Big Pharma's in-licensing deals, by therapy area and phase of development, 2012-16
  • Figure 30: Top oncology in-licensing dealmakers, 2012-16
  • Figure 31: Big Pharma's infectious diseases in-licensing deals by infection type, 2012-16
  • Figure 32: Big Pharma's in-licensing deals by total deal value, 2012-16
  • Figure 33: Value of up-front and milestone payments of in-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 34: Big Pharma's out-licensing deals by therapy area, 2012-16
  • Figure 35: Big Pharma's big spenders in in-licensing deals, 2012-16
  • Figure 36: Big Pharma's licensing payments by payment metric, 2012-16
  • Figure 37: Big Pharma's in-licensing deals by payment metric average, 2012-16
  • Figure 38: Big Pharma's average up-front payments in in-licensing deals by phase of development, 2012-16
  • Figure 39: Total up-front payment values and up-front payments as a percentage of in-licensing deal value, 2012-16
  • Figure 40: Big Pharma's in-licensing deals by phase of development at deal signing, 2012-16
  • Figure 41: Share of preclinical and Phase I in-licensing deals increases, 2012-16
  • Figure 42: Strong representation across all phases in Big Pharma's in-licensing deals, 2012-16
  • Figure 43: Marketed products dominated Big Pharma's out-licensing deals, 2012-16
  • Figure 44: Big Pharma's in-licensing deal economics by phase of development, 2012-16
  • Figure 45: Big Pharma's average up-front payments for in-licensing deals by phase of development, 2012-16
  • Figure 46: Big Pharma's average total deal values for in-licensing deals by phase of development, 2012-16
  • Figure 47: Big Pharma's in-licensing deal volume proportions by licensed geography, 2012-16
  • Figure 48: Big Pharma's out-licensing deal volume proportions by licensed geography, 2012-16
  • Figure 49: Big Pharma's worldwide in-licensing deals decreased and North American carve-outs increased, 2012-16
  • Figure 50: Geographic breakdown of in-licensing geography by Big Pharma peer set, 2012-16
  • Figure 51: Big Pharma's in-licensing deals by deal structure, 2012-16
  • Figure 52: Big Pharma's out-licensing deals by deal structure, 2012-16
  • Figure 53: Development and research/discovery consistently featured in Big Pharma's in-licensing deals, 2012-16
  • Figure 54: In-licensing deal structure by phase, 2012-16

LIST OF TABLES

  • Table 1: Big Pharma's lucrative immuno-oncology deals, 2012-16
  • Table 2: Big Pharma's in-licensing deal values by company, 2012-16
  • Table 3: Top 10 Big Pharma in-licensing deals, by deal value, 2012-16
  • Table 4: Big Pharma peer set
Back to Top