Cell and Gene Therapy: The Next Frontier in Healthcare

Cell and Gene Therapy: The Next Frontier in Healthcare 

Executive Summary

  • Cell and gene therapies (CGTs) have become one of the most promising technology categories in biopharma with the global market expected to grow from ~$7B in 2021 to ~$58B in 2026
  • CGT treatments are broad and can be categorized into three technology approaches: 1) Cell & gene-modified cell therapies, 2) Gene therapy & genome editing, and 3) DNA & RNA therapeutics
  • The main drivers of anticipated growth of the sector are CAR-T and cell therapies in oncology as well as gene therapies targeting rare diseases
  • CGT development has accelerated with M&A and licensing deals, which have been strong over the last 5 years, in particular after FDA approvals of Luxturna and Kymriah in 2017
  • Despite significant optimism, CGT has faced a number of commercial, clinical, and regulatory hurdles that have dampened expectations in the last year

Introduction

Cell and Gene Therapy (CGT) is one of the most promising new frontiers in advanced therapies with the potential for transformational disease-modifying outcomes. As an example, Luxturna, approved by the FDA in 2017, can restore vision in children and young adults with a rare disease that would otherwise lead to blindness. The promise of CGT is potentially very broad, holding hope for treating or even reversing many currently uncurable and more common genetic diseases like hemophilia A or Parkinson’s.

Current State of Cell & Gene Therapy

Although the space is constantly expanding in breadth and application, CGTs can be grouped into three broad types of technologies: cell and gene-modified cell therapies, gene therapy and genome editing, and DNA and RNA therapeutics.

The first CGT was approved by the FDA in 2017 (Kymriah ‒ developed by Novartis and indicated for acute lymphoblastic leukemia and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma). Since then, only 17 CGTs have launched in the US through 2021.

 

Despite a relatively low market size of $7B in 2021, CGT is forecast to grow to a market size of $58B by 2026 at a 52% CAGR, compared to only 5% for small molecules and 1% for non-CGT biologics (incl. vaccines) markets. This forecast is underpinned by a growing interest in CGT with total financing in regenerative medicine doubling from ~$10 billion in 2019 to ~$20 billion in 2020, according to the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine.[i] Interest stems from Big Pharma as well as from private equity and venture capital. In 2020, 16 out of 20 largest biopharma manufacturers had CGT products in their portfolio, although CGT account for more than 20% of pipeline assets for 2 of the 16 manufacturers.[ii] Out of all private investment made in life sciences, roughly a third is directed toward CGT ($68 billion in 2021).[iii]

Approximately 46% of the cumulative worldwide sales in CGT ($70.5 billion) is expected to come from assets currently in clinical trials. Significant growth in this segment is expected to be driven by gene therapies, which account for half of the top 10 assets with the highest projected sales. These include Valoctocogene Roxaparvovec (valrox) by BioMarin and Etranacogene Dezaparvovec by uniQure, targeting Hemophilia A and B, respectively.

Overall, CGTs have accounted for just over 14% of the 63 biologics approved and marketed in the US in 2020 and 2021. In 2021, out of 130 conventional drugs and biologics approved by the FDA, only 6 were CGTs. However, the clinical-stage pipeline is very strong with 1,183 assets across all three clinical phases. Cell therapies and gene-modified cell therapies (incl. CAR-T) account for almost two thirds of the pipeline.

In evaluating CGT assets in the pipeline, there are clear patterns that emerge with respect to therapeutic areas with more substantial investment within each technology category. Cell and gene-modified cell therapy assets predominantly focus on oncology (62% of all clinical stage programs), while assets from gene therapy and genome editing, in addition to oncology, concentrate on central nervous system (CNS) and ophthalmology applications. Over a quarter of DNA and RNA therapeutics in the pipeline focus on oncology and ~10% each target CNS and GI indications.

Rare diseases make up a significant portion of clinical stage programs, in particular for gene therapy and genome editing. Almost half of gene therapy and genome editing assets in the pipeline are targeting rare diseases, while cell and gene-modified therapies focus on non-rare diseases, many of which are in oncology.

Pipeline Category Spotlight: Gene Therapy & Genome Editing

Within CGT, gene therapy and genome editing is highly diverse, as biopharma companies are pursuing a range of therapeutic area applications. The goal of gene therapy is to treat a disease by either replacing, inactivating or including new genes into cells, either inside (in vivo) or outside patient’s body (ex vivo). This process is conducted using vectors, of which viruses are the most popular form (e.g., adenovirus, adeno-associated virus, lentivirus and retrovirus). Currently, there are only two FDA-approved gene therapies (Zolgensma and Luxturna). These two gene therapies target rare diseases, but as popularity of the technology grows, it is expected that gene therapy will be used to address more common conditions such as hemophilia A or stubbornly high LDL cholesterol.

Recent Challenges

Despite significant optimism and investment, CGTs have faced substantial hurdles to approval and access, in particular for treatments with long-term or potentially lifetime efficacy. While the effects of RNA interference are transient, gene therapy treatments and gene editing therapies like CRISPR-Cas9 are intended be permanent solutions. This raises the bar for long-term data – both for regulators seeking extended safety data for approvals and payers seeking validation of long-term efficacy to justify $1-2M+ single treatment pricing.

Bluebird bio received EMA approval for two gene therapies—Zynteglo (severe beta thalassemia) and Skysona (cerebral adrenoleukodystrophy)—but subsequently exited EU operations in 2021 due to difficulties gaining payer reimbursement. Bluebird has also encountered several clinical holds and extended FDA reviews. With these hurdles, bluebird’s future is in doubt as it faces the possibility of running out of cash with its stock trading 98% below its March 2018 peak despite the potential for three gene therapy approvals in the next two years, signaling a more challenging environment than anticipated for the sector moving forward.

Cell and Gene Therapy Deals Landscape

Only a small portion of launched CGTs originated or were owned by large biopharma companies. Licensing agreements are understandably more common than acquisitions. However, the promise of CGT has led to significant large consolidator interest and investment in pipeline assets.

 

When looking at deals >$1B in value in the last two years, licensing agreements are about as frequent as M&A.

The deals landscape around CGT has been very active in the last five years as large biopharma companies look to expand capabilities in rare diseases, hematology, immunology, and oncology. Notable deals post-pandemic include Bayer acquisition of Asklepios Biopharmaceuticals (Askbio) in December 2020 for $4B ($2B upfront) to strengthen its emerging gene therapy business through its adeno-associated virus (AAV)-based technology platform and Eli Lilly adding its first gene therapy to its portfolio through the purchase of Prevail Therapeutics in January 2021 for $1B.

When looking for partners, large biopharma often evaluates particular cell and gene therapy technology potential and strategic fit of a target. Companies are often either looking to expand existing CGT capabilities (e.g., Sanofi-Translate Bio deal to strengthen Sanofi’s mRNA center of excellence), to build up a CGT portfolio (e.g., Astellas buying Audentes to develop expertise in AAV), or to access a specific technology platform (e.g. Sumitomo acquisition of Spirovant). Large biopharma is also spreading its bets and investing in early-stage biopharma companies that are looking for ways to make cell and gene therapies address a wider range of diseases, to reduce potential side effects, or to streamline the manufacturing process. One example is Takeda’s collaboration with Code Bio to develop liver-directed gene therapy using lipid nanoparticles (LNP). LNPs are an alternative to virus-based vectors that should not trigger immune response and can carry a larger load than AAV, thus enabling gene therapy to tackle disorders where a larger gene is affected.[1]

Conclusion

These are exciting times for cell and gene therapies. “These concepts are no longer the stuff of science fiction,” noted the former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb. The technologies have potential for breakthrough innovations across a wide range of therapeutic areas and conditions. Some companies choose to engage by developing capabilities in-house, while many others have chosen M&A, licensing agreements, or partnership deals with smaller companies and startups. Given the plethora of investment opportunities and multiple directions in which the CGT space is currently growing, it is even more important for the overall commercial success to choose the right deal partner and the right format for collaboration.

How Kx Can Help

Our experts evaluate business opportunities, deliver top-notch expertise, and make data-driven recommendations to our healthcare clients. Kx can support your growth strategy from opportunity assessments for pipeline investment through commercialization. Contact Sean Vander Linde at sean.vanderlinde@kxadvisors.com to learn more. 

Contact Our Team Today

References

[i] Alliance for Regenerative Medicine, Annual Report 2020
[ii] Toby AuWerter, Jeff Smith and Lydia The, “Biopharma portfolio strategy in the era of cell and gene therapy,” McKinsey & Company, April 2020
[iii] Steve Kemler, Adam Lohr, “Cell & Gene Therapy Investment Outlook in 2022 & Beyond,” Feb. 21, 2022, https://www.cellandgene.com/doc/cell-gene-therapies-investment-outlook-in-beyond-0001
[1] Madeleine Armstrong, “Genetic Medicine: The Next Generation,” Evaluate Vantage, April 2022

Strategizing for Your First Drug Launch

Strategizing for Your First Drug Launch

Part 1 of Kx’s 3-part series

Introduction

“We have 12 months to either make it or break it post-launch”. This sentiment has echoed from one pharmaceutical board room to the next for years. And though it may be overused, for pre-revenue pharmaceutical companies planning to directly launch their first product, the idiom couldn’t be truer.

With increasing payer scrutiny, heightened competition in specialty drug markets, and more restrictive in-person access to HCPs due to COVID-19, achieving commercial success out of the gate is crucial for pharmaceuticals. In an analysis of 149 new drug launches, roughly 64% of drugs met or beat expectations in their launch years. Of those, 86% continued to meet or beat analyst expectations in year 2. For the drugs that missed expectations in year 1, 70% went on to miss again in year 2. Only about 30% managed to reverse course by year 3. (Deloitte, 2020). In other words, winning in Year 1 is paramount to a drug’s long-term success and ROI.

Unfortunately, drug research and development costs are on the rise (an estimated 8.5% YoY over general price inflation) (Joseph A DiMasi 1, 2016), and pre-revenue drug companies rarely have the resources and cash flow to mimic the commercial strategies of Big Pharma and legacy incumbents. Further, these “cookie-cutter” commercial strategies applied to the wrong market or product can kill a launch before it even begins. Still, there are unique competitive advantages held by commercial leaders at smaller pharmaceutical companies that cannot be matched by larger peers and incumbents:

  • The full might of your commercial team is able to focus on one product
  • Leaner organization size and operations enable nimbler post-launch commercial tactics

Kx’s blog series on Strategizing for your First Drug Launch is intended to support late-stage, pre-revenue pharmaceutical companies who are planning to directly commercialize their first product capitalize on these competitive advantages. Kx’s 3-step approach draws on concepts from academic experts such as James Collins and Jerry Porras and on our direct, real-world expertise consulting clients through launch planning. It is designed to help your company build a dynamic commercial strategy tailored to your drug:

  1. Cast a launch vision
  2. Build a brand plan and supporting operating plan around your drug
  3. Utilize a dynamic launch P&L model to refine your launch strategy to meet internal constraints

This first post in our 3-part blog series will focus on Step 1: the launch vision.

Cast a holistic launch vision with a guiding ‘north star’ and quantifiable goals before you start commercial planning

In a 1996 publication of the Harvard Business Review, James Collins and Jerry Porras asserted that “a well-conceived vision consists of two major components: core ideology and envisioned future. Core ideology, the yin in our scheme, defines what we stand for and why we exist. Yin is unchanging and complements yang, the envisioned future. The envisioned future is what we aspire to become, to achieve, to create – something that will require significant change and progress to attain” (James C. Collins, 1996). Kx agrees that the exercise of determining the core ideology of a company (i.e., its core values combined with its core purpose) should take place at a company’s inception, well before commercialization. However, because of the outsize impact a first drug launch can have on a pharmaceutical company’s holistic success, we recommend that executives revisit and repurpose three modified components of Collins’ and Porras’ framework to cast a “Launch Vision” specific to your leading asset:

1. Launch Purpose

The launch purpose should be distinct from the core purpose of a company. For instance, Pfizer’s corporate core purpose is to “deliver breakthroughs that change patients’ lives” (Pfizer, 2022). Yet, for their SARS-CoV2 vaccine launch in 2020, Pfizer consistently messaged a more focused launch purpose to “move with the same level of [timely] urgency to safely supply a high-quality vaccine around the world” (Pfizer, 2020). This launch purpose is both more specific, and also directly linked to the unique characteristics and launch environment of the drug itself. Because Pfizer launched a first-to-market vaccine, swift distribution and broad market access were necessary cornerstones of the launch to combat the pandemic.

To align on principles for the launch purpose, executives should consider a number of questions:

  • What did we set out to achieve with this drug during R&D?
  • What makes my drug unique as a product? What is my drug solving that is different?
  • What are the characteristics of the market environment into which our drug is launching?

2. Lofty Launch Goal (LLG)

It is imperative for executives to define what launch success means before fleshing out the commercial strategy. Far too often, leaders across the healthcare industry communicate that their #1 goal in launch is to “maximize revenues” or “maximize profits” when communicating to their commercial organizations and investors. But these goals are fundamentally flawed in that they are not measurable. A commercial team should have the ability to know when it has achieved its goals.

Collins and Porras specifically state that companies should define a “Big, Hairy, Audacious Goal” or BHAG that serves as the 10-year or even 30-year measurable goal for the company. They classify BHAGs into four broad categories: target, common-enemy, role-model, and internal-transformation (James C. Collins, 1996). For drug launch planning, Kx recommends developing a goal or set of goals similar to a BHAG, and typically segments these lofty launch goals (LLGs) into three buckets:

  • Financial:
    • E.g., reach $200M of US revenue by end of Year 2
    • E.g., achieve simple payback before 2025
  • Competitive
    • E.g., become the #2 drug in our indication by Year 3 of launch
    • E.g., knock off Competitor X as the #1 drug company in our target indication
  • Brand
    • E.g., become brand with highest unaided awareness among our target HCPs
    • E.g., become the Apple of our target therapeutic category
    • E.g., introduce the first premium drug to cash-pay market

3. The Vivid Description of Launch Success

The vivid description of launch success should answer the question, “what would the environment around our drug look like if we achieve our goal and fulfill our purpose”? The answer to this question could include anything related to your first drug, but typical elements may include:

  • Market & competitive position
  • Paradigm shifts in provider practices
  • Quality of relationships with prescribers
  • Brand awareness
  • Prescriber reach and conversion
  • Patient quality of life
  • Patient access to your drug

The primary utility of the vivid description is to motivate and inspire the commercial team with something tangible to which they can aspire during the strategic planning phases ahead of launch. Often even more than the LLG, it has the ability to ground the commercial organization in a common, tangible envisioned future of success.

The Launch Purpose (your “north star”) combined with the Lofty Launch Goal and Vivid Description of Success (your “finish line”) together form the holistic Launch Vision to support your commercial and executive teams throughout the pre-launch planning process. With the Launch Vision in place, commercial leadership can pivot to building out the backbone of the first drug launch strategy: the brand plan and ideal operating plan. Read more about our end-to-end launch strategy capabilities in Steps 2 and 3 of this blog series!

How Kx Advisors can support you in building your first drug’s “Launch Vision”

The “Launch Vision” stage of first drug launch planning is typically executed internally by commercial and executive leadership. However, Kx Advisors’ pharmaceutical launch excellence team supports clients during this initial phase by facilitating workshops and discussions with senior leadership, providing relevant in-market and out-of-market insights from decades of launch strategy experience, and much more. To learn more about Kx’s launch planning capabilities, contact Chris at chris.waybill@kxadvisors.com.

Contact Our Team Today

References

Deloitte. (2020, March 26). Key factors to improve drug launches. Retrieved from Deloitte Insights: https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/life-sciences/successful-drug-launch-strategy.html

James C. Collins, J. I. (1996). INNOVATING TO BRING IMPORTANT NEW THERAPIES TO PATIENTS. Harvard Business Review, 65-77.

Joseph A DiMasi 1, H. G. (2016, March 21). Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: New estimates of R&D costs. Journal of Health Economics, 1. Retrieved from Policy & Medicine: https://www.policymed.com/2014/12/a-tough-road-cost-to-develop-one-new-drug-is-26-billion-approval-rate-for-drugs-entering-clinical-de.html#:~:text=Developing%20a%20new%20prescription%20medicine,the%20Journal%20of%20Health%20Economics.

Pfizer. (2020, December 02). Pfizer and BioNTech Achieve First Authorization in the World for a Vaccine to Combat COVID-19. Retrieved from Pfizer: https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-achieve-first-authorization-world

Pfizer. (2022). INNOVATING TO BRING IMPORTANT NEW THERAPIES TO PATIENTS. Retrieved from Pfizer: https://www.pfizer.com/science/research-development/breakthroughs