Asymmetric update - the $100bn question

Asymmetric update - the $100bn question

It seems reasonable to revisit?this post from about a year ago…?In it, I posed the question: how much is decision making worth??

The answer, with 2022 numbers in hand, looks like about $75bn - the difference between 1st and 5th in what is, at the molecule level, a me-too market.

No alt text provided for this image

Let’s be clear. Whatever differences you think exist between the PD-1s and PD-L1s, these were not ‘known’ in the 2000s, or even 10 years ago. What was happening in at least two companies was, however, very different than in the three other ‘oncology’ companies. This was not a decision making landscape of perfect knowledge. Analysts projections at the time only accorded ‘order of entry’ differences between them - those aren’t necessarily proven wrong by what happened, but the magnitude of that difference has surprised many. Of course, the decision to be?4th?to market is still a decision, whether it was made passively or actively. The key question should be ‘which market?’

The decision to develop, and how to develop, and where to develop, happened very differently in these five companies, and for different reasons. All of these things - context, rationale, strategy, capacity, capability and more - contribute to both early- and late-stage decision-making. The companies that did best here didn’t ‘know more’ than the other companies, but they did learn better. That includes understanding what they were seeing in early phase, as well as whether or not they knew where the drugs might work.

If there is a great ‘sliding doors’ moment for this class, it is ‘what would have happened if BMS had maintained its lead?’ There is little doubt from the numbers that BMS got their first launch ‘right’ compared to Keytruda. That they lost it is also clear. The question about ‘why’ will yield different answers, depending on who you listen to. One answer suggests that winning early didn’t help their subsequent strategy - they went into ‘defend the lead’ mode, inadvertently, or on purpose. However, Keytruda’s decision to study broadly became its strength - built on a ‘because we can’t know where it works, let’s go looking’ approach.

So, the answer to the question: how much does decision making matter in pharmaceuticals?, the answer in 2023 is $75bn. This time next year? $100bn or more.

George McNamara

Mumm lab member (through being HPS Core Manager)

2 年

Pathology scoring decision overcome by executives hubris https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2016/08/05/bristol-myers-executives-we-took-a-bold-risk-to-try-to-help-all-patients/?sh=31aab1c235b2 BristolMyers Executives: We Took A Bold Risk With Failed Lung Cancer Study August 5, 2016 This morning, Bristol-Myers Squibb shocked Wall Street and the world of cancer medicine with the news that its drug Opdivo had failed to show a benefit as a first choice of treatment in non-small cell lung cancer. Investor forecasts had shown Bristol getting billions of dollars in sales for this use, and shares in Bristol-Myers Squibb slumped as much as 23% in morning trading. Meanwhile, shares of rival Merck , which makes Keytruda, a similar drug, are up 11%. Merck announced in June that Keytruda extended the lives of previously untreated patients with non-small cell lung cancer. One key difference between the two studies appears to be in the use of a diagnostic test for a protein called PD-L1. Merck only tested its drug in patients whose tumors expressed more than 50% PD-L1. Bristol chose a much lower level: 5%. (thanks as always to Microsoft/Linkedin for silly comment length limit - more in reply below)

  • 该图片无替代文字
Shirley Wakelin

Supporting newly promoted line managers step into their leadership

2 年

Powerful data Mike, thanks for sharing

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Mike Rea的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了