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 →
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 →
Below is my traditional end of the year summary and a recap of catalysts for 2015. As always, I did my best to cover the most important events, let me know if I missed anything… I would like to use this opportunity and wish the readers of this blog a happy and prosperous new year.
In the pharmaceutical industry, it is very common to see multiple drugs in development that go after the same target. Usually, there is a direct correlation between the recognition a target has and the number of competing agents. This is the case with “hot targets” such as PI3K,RAF and mTOR, which are pursued by many pharma and biotech companies.
In most cases (especially with targeted therapies), the different compounds are being developed in parallel, and there is no way of identifying a clear winner. This can persist even after approval. For instance, both BMS Pfizer and Novartis (NVS) have an mTOR inhibitor on the market for the treatment of renal cancer. It is clear both drugs are active but each compound was approved based on a different trial in a different patient population, so neither can claim superiority.
Synta (SNTA) is recuperating nicely from last year’s meltdown following the failure of its melanoma drug, elesclomol. The company is gaining momentum thanks to its early stage Hsp90 (heat shock protein 90) inhibitor, STA-9090. STA-9090 seems to garner a lot of attention in the medical community following the presentation of encouraging phase I data at ASCO last June. Based on the preliminary results, STA-9090 could be what the industry has been waiting for: A broad and potent Hsp90 with an acceptable safety profile.