RE:RE:RE:RE:Neuro is back… Pharmas are risk averse. It will take a clinical trial showing efficacy and safety -- and probably more than one -- before any pharma would even consider a buyout.
I have to disagree with that statement. Look at the facts here (data only up till 2019)
https://www.evaluate.com/vantage/articles/data-insights/ma/following-ma-money-phase-and-therapy-area Many, many pre-clinical buyouts especially in cancer therapies.
What's the difference between a private equity fund sinking $100m (and I've seen multiples of this amount being invested) into a start-up biotech (obviously pre-clinical) and a pharma (or another biotech company) doing a buyout of a pre-clinical biotech for the same amount? Yes, a big pharma is probably more risk adverse but that doesn't mean they always want to see clinical data.
Or how about this new trend in 2021
https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/biotech-pharma-deal-trends-2021/593267/ Neuroscience commands more attention
For years, the attention of biopharma dealmakers has centered on a select few areas of drug development — cancer, rare and immune diseases, as well as technologies like cell and gene therapy. Now, another area is gaining traction.
Big pharma had largely pulled back from research into the brain and central nervous system because so many drugs ended in failure. But in recent years, a better understanding of these systems has brought reasons for optimism in diseases like ALS, depression and movement disorders, in turn reigniting the interest of acquirers.
"The shift that I'm seeing the most is that more companies are going into CNS," said Marya Postner, head of the life sciences partnering practice at Cooley.