RE:RE:Maximizing SORT1 platform value I may be too simplistic in this, but that's not THTX problem. If you are just licensing your delivery system to make whatever chemo someone has safer and more effective, you don't need to carve out each market. Those chemo/immunos/TKIs/etc already compete in various indications. You can be open to anyone and as the delivery "accelerator" you take a piece of all the pies.
THTX can own anything they develop with genericized drugs (since they aren't in the biz of creating new chemo) and a piece of anything else even if it competes with theirs. They could even buy smaller guys who've developed interesting drugs that they can optimize with SORT1. But given the broad "solid tumor" on the trial, just this one drug will likely be used in many of the advanced tumor segments already. They have the doxerubicin version which may or may not be needed too.
It is an interesting question though. What is the value-maximizing approach? I really wonder what their new experienced guys think about that and what PLs experience tells him on how these things develop. Good questions for someone to ask that goes to the possible capital markets day.
qwerty22 wrote:
A problem I can see is how to you carve off certain indication+chemo combos in a licence then ensure the next SORT1 variant doesn't then begin creeping into that space?
Think about the Trogarzo deal thtx signed, they don't just have a deal with Trogarzo in MDR hiv but variants of Trogarzo and to some extent anything else that invades that space. If they are spend money developing a market they don't want Taimed's next drug undermining that.
Let's image SORT1 is successful. Let's imagine SORT1 + docetaxel works in breast cancer. Then let's imagine SORT1+ SN38 comes along and gets approval in pancreatic cancer. How do you fully isolate breast cancer from the SN38 drug? There would be a strong rationale for the SN38 version also working in breast cancer, there would be a strong urge for independent clinical researcher to want to test the SN38 version in breast cancer even if the company avoided that (which they probably shouldn't except if they have a licence agreement that stops them).
I can see far too much overlap in the potential efficacy of each version of SORT1+chemo to comfortably carve out a licence for each drug. I'm saying that from the partners perspective. If SORT1+chemoX looks like a good breast cancer drug then probably SORT1+moleculeY is also going to look to have potential in breast cancer and the only sure way for a partner to maintain the market is to have some control over version two. To me it's looks like an all or nothing deal, there's too much overlap in the potential clinical applicability of each version of the SORT1 tech to carve out separate deals for each molecule.
JMO, I'm happy to be wrong.
Wino115 wrote:
Thinking about Realitychecks question, one issue is how do biotechs maximize the value of a platform that delivers numerous drugs more safely and effectively. What THTX has may be a drug in itself, but it's value may also be in being able to get many drugs into hard to reach tumors safely and with a bigger punch. If so, the maximum value for that as a platform is for it to be owned outside of big pharma competitors who would likely not look to partnerships with anyone in their commercial lines and would only use it in-house for proprietary drugs or out licensees it in areas of no interest. That approach would likely have a lower value if we assume any new indication is value-enhancing to the owner of SORT1.
As such, SORT1 is more valuable as a stand alone or part of a non-big-pharma player who could still license it out to many players. So maybe it's a SeaGen or mid-size oncology specialist that could justify a higher price. But someone looking to internalize the program would pay less.
Another reason that the early years should be about building up INDs with other standard chemo they can readily access and to partner with other proprietary chemo, TKIs, Immunotherapay drugs and not sell out cheap and early. Of course, everything said about needing strong results still applies. I'm just trying to think strategically on what leads to the max value.