Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @murphey_richard

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @murphey_richard

  1. 14. sij

    "The proportion of new [FDA] approvals supported by at least 2 pivotal trials decreased from 80.6% in 1995-1997 to 52.8% in 2015-2017"

    Poništi
  2. 10. sij

    Source of all this is PRs / SEC filings / websites, any corrections are welcome!

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  3. 10. sij

    M&A exits were roughly in line with 2018. Biggest buyouts of VC-backed biopharma companies: Lilly / Loxo, $8B Roche / Spark, $4.8B Astellas / Audentes, $3B Sanofi / Synthorx, $2.5B UCB / Dova, $2.5B Ipsen / Clementia, $1.3B Merck / Peloton, $1B upfront / $2.2B total

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  4. 10. sij

    Here's a table with all of the VC-backed biopharma IPOs on NASDAQ / NYSE in 2018 and 2019 that raised $50M+

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  5. 10. sij

    VC backed biopharma IPOs are down a bit, but 2019 was still a good year (this only includes VC-backed biopharma IPOs that raised $50M+)

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  6. 10. sij

    Cancer still dominates, but neuro + neurodegenerative is the second biggest category. Rare disease is 3rd.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  7. 10. sij

    The Series B landscape has changed as well. Most notably, Chinese investors aren't leading deals in US companies.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  8. 10. sij

    The most active Series A investors have changed from 2018 to 2019. By my count, ARCH, Canaan, and Sofinnova led the most Series A deals in 2019 (this is just based on PRs, stealth co's not counted)

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  9. 10. sij

    Here's the funding data by quarter:

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  10. 10. sij

    Quick pre-JPM recap of biotech startup funding and exits in 2019: venture funding of biopharma down modestly in 2019 from 2018. Series A down a bit, Series B up a bit

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  11. 20. stu 2019.

    If you want to learn more, read Sally Smith Hughes' book Genentech: The Beginnings of Biotech. It's a quick and engaging read. You can also check out an article I wrote with a bit more context on the above quotes:

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  12. 20. stu 2019.

    All of the quotes above are from Sally Smith Hughes' interviews from Berkeley's Bancroft Library Oral History Center.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  13. 20. stu 2019.

    But perhaps the most important thing Bob brought to Genentech was his determination, optimism and ability to get things done. Those traits more than made up for his lack of experience.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  14. 20. stu 2019.

    Genentech's focus on capital efficiency was another key tactic that reduced financing risk and let them stay independent.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  15. 20. stu 2019.

    Today the idea of a profitable biopharma startup almost seems ridiculous. It is incredible that Bob had profitability as a goal -- and achieved it. Perhaps that's why Genentech was able to survive as an independent company for so long.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  16. 20. stu 2019.

    Financing risk is always huge for pre-revenue biopharma companies, especially for those that want to sell their own products. Bob was acutely aware of this and focused on profitability. He partnered non-core assets to fund work on core products.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  17. 20. stu 2019.

    Genentech's goal was always to develop and sell their own products, rather than just licensing projects to pharma. The value of a drug increases exponentially as it advances through the development process.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  18. 20. stu 2019.

    The only downside of insulin as an initial product was that Genentech couldn't market it themselves. They had to partner with a big company for commercialization. For startups, low-prevalence indications with high unmet need > highly prevalent indications

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  19. 20. stu 2019.

    The short path to human proof of concept for insulin was also attractive: short studies, objective endpoints, and an approvable biomarker endpoint with high correlation to clinical outcomes.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  20. 20. stu 2019.

    Another benefit of insulin as an initial product was that insulin was known to improve clinical outcomes for people with diabetes. Low clinical risk + best-in-class product = great initial indication for new tech

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·