According to data of EvaluatePharma, the top 2 on the following list are Kite Pharma’s CAR-T therapy and Incyte’s IDO inhibitor, and DBV’s peanut allergy vaccine and Karyopharm’s cancer treatment selinexor also rank in the top 15. While the potential of the two drugs of Kite and Incyte is generally recognized, opinions on other products on the list are likely to be divided.

Equity analysts are not typically known for their prudence when evaluating the R&D work of small drug development companies, therefore, the values (net present value figures) forecast are far less important than the fact that those drugs rank among the following list. In addition, the drugs in development listed in the following list are limited only to the assets owned in major European countries and U.S. companies.

Note: NPV: net present value, data sourced from sales forecast.

1

Most valuable drugs in development

Kite and Incyte’s drugs in development are certainly the most valuable in this evaluation. Axicabtagene ciloleucel is expected to receive approval in the coming weeks, while Incyte is actively deepening cooperation with MSD and Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) over epacadostat.

While both drugs in development are technically unpartnered, it seems that either Kite or Incyte has no intention of seeking product licensing deal, however, such deal may be reached if the price is right. In fact, a number of companies have said that they wanted to take the products to market themselves, at least on the U.S. market.

However, for those products in development that will face highly competitive markets, a strong partner is crucial if they are to succeed commercially, such as Axovant’s Alzheimer’s drug intepirdine, Karyopharm’s selinexor for myeloma and lymphomas, or Iovance’s melanoma drug LN-144. It’s worth noting that the NPVs of the selinexor and LN-144 are higher than the market values of their respective companies, suggesting that investors are not as optimistic as sellers.

This disparity is also particularly evident with the U.S. oncology company Kura and Australian biotech company Mesoblast: both need to strive to submit convincing clinical evidence for their major drugs in development. The FDA refused to approve tipifarnib in 2005 when it was owned by J & J, while Mesoblast’s partner in its cell therapy left in 2016. In addition, Avexis’s gene therapy is still in Phase I, with early data release urgently needed.

2

Convincing evidence

For many of such products in development, potential partners would want to see much more convincing data, especially proof of regulatory approval or commercial potential, before considering buying them.

One example is gene therapies, such as, Sage’s epilepsy candidate SAGE-547: this indication is very prone to late-stage failure, and it is very difficult to make predictions according to past situation. Prothena’s amyloidosis project has been ranking on the above list of EvaluatePharma since 2014, however, big pharmaceutical enterprises will presumably continue to overlook this asset worth billions of USD.

However, this does not mean that there are no hopes. Puma’s Nerlynx, and Acadia’s Nuplazid appeared on this list of EvaluatePharma for many years, and they have both been successfully marketed and are forecast to generate strong sales. And, in 2011, an antiviral of U.S. company Pharmasset went on the list, which later become the Sovaldi we know.

But EvaluatePharma had flops in forecasts previous years, like the inhaled insulin Afrezza, Newlink Genetics’ cancer vaccine algenpantucel-L and Biosante’s Libigel. While the absence of a big partner is not necessarily a failure, it would be wise to ask serious questions about these assets’ clinical and commercial values.

By Chu Minhua from Healthcare Executive

Source: Y-LP.com