Sector News

Does 'transparent' Pfizer really not want an I-O buy?

June 20, 2017
Life sciences

Could a Pfizer buyout of Bristol-Myers Squibb or AstraZeneca make sense? Sure, one analyst says—but he doesn’t think the New York drugmaker is interested.

The way Bernstein’s Tim Anderson sees it, Pfizer has “proven itself to be a very transparent company.” And so when the company says it’s committed to its Merck KGaA immuno-oncology partnership—which has already produced approved therapy Bavencio—Anderson thinks Pfizer means it.

Speculation has been swirling for a while now that Pfizer—which has “for several months now … been strongly suggesting it might engage in larger M&A”—could try for BMS or AZ, both of which have I-O programs that are further along than its own, Anderson wrote in a Monday note to clients. Bavencio, as the fourth PD-1/PD-L1 med to hit the scene, “seems like it will struggle to gain much traction,” and early clinical studies suggest its side effects might be worse than those of its peers, he pointed out.

And Pfizer CEO Ian Read has already acknowledged that the breakup fee it would owe its German partner in that event would be a drop in the bucket.

“I don’t think that any type of breakup fee would be material compared to the size of a large deal,” he told investors on Pfizer’s Q1 conference call in May.

But Pfizer has also repeatedly stressed that it’s “committed” and “focused” where the partnership is concerned, and Anderson’s inclined to take the company at its word. After all, executives have been upfront about so many of the company’s other major moves: They informed investors years in advance that they were looking at a large-scale split, though it ultimately never happened; they expressed interest in a generics pickup before nabbing Hospira; and they kept up tax inversion talk all the way through to the later-scuttled Allergan agreement, Anderson noted.

“Many management teams, when asked difficult or sensitive questions, will often give predictably vague answers,” he wrote. But in Pfizer’s case—”given its history as a consistently transparent company that reliably signals its intentions”—their answers may hold more truth.

“In our view, it would be uncharacteristic of them to strongly support avelumab one minute, and then ditch it the next,” he added.

It may be a while before investors find out of Anderson is right or wrong, though. He also predicted that a buy of BMS or AZ wouldn’t happen until Pfizer gets some clarity around whether the first-line lung-cancer CTLA4 combo approach both companies are pursuing holds any promise. On that front, AstraZeneca likely won’t have data until this fall, while Bristol’s should arrive next year.

By Carly Helfand

Source: Fierce Pharma

comments closed

Related News

May 4, 2024

Novartis acquires Mariana in $1.75bn deal to strengthen radioligand portfolio

Life sciences

Novartis will acquire Mariana’s lead candidate MC-339, a radioligand therapy (RLT) designed to target small-cell lung cancer. Last year, Mariana had raised $175m in a Series B round from several funds and pharma giant Eli Lilly.

May 4, 2024

Novo Nordisk aims for market domination, boasts $1.5bn obesity sales in Q1

Life sciences

The company’s aspiration to expand the use of its obesity products to cardiovascular indications has been successful. In March, its blockbuster drug Wegovy was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for reducing the risk of cardiovascular diseases in obese or overweight adults.

May 4, 2024

Ono Pharmaceutical acquires cancer-focused biopharma Deciphera for $2.4bn

Life sciences

Massachusetts-based Deciphera brings to the table an extensive kinase inhibitor pipeline, kinase drug discovery expertise, and a strong commercial and sales platform in the US and European markets that is meant to advance Ono’s capabilities and presence in the oncology space.

How can we help you?

We're easy to reach