制药巨头抱团能圆发财梦吗？

    分析师认为，互为对手的大型制药公司携手合作实际上可能会提高它们在市场上的竞争力。举例来说，参与本次合作的默克正在和其他几家公司争相开发一种抗肿瘤创新药，人们称之为抗程序性死亡因子-1（PD-1）药物。最近的研究表明，这种药物能有效治疗多种癌症。摩根大通（J.P. Morgan）私人银行业务美国股票策略团队主管史蒂文•里斯说：“在我们的记忆中，已经有很长时间没有见过这么令人激动的抗癌药物了。”

    但投资管理公司T. Rowe Price分析师吉亚德•巴克瑞认为，百时美施贵宝似乎处于领先位置，因为这家公司开始后期试验的时间要早于默克。为了赶上施贵宝，默克向其他制药公司寻求帮助，后者的癌症治疗方案可能改进默克的药物，尽管这样做可能意味着要和它们分享最终产品带来的收入。默克研发总裁罗杰•珀尔马特在一次电话会议上说：“至于是要双管齐下（指默克的产品既用于单药治疗又用于联合治疗）还是与他人合作，显然，最好是能双管齐下，但不能指望完全靠自己发现所有的东西。”

    里斯指出，另一方面，独自开发可能带来的风险是，在估算规模为300亿美元的PD-1市场上全面败北。里斯推测，随着PD-1药品获准投入使用，这个市场的规模将会倍增。他说：“与人共享、从而成为更可靠的竞争者总比只顾抱着现有的收获、结果坐失良机要好。”里斯还认为，这样的合作可能促成新的并购：“当它们意识到兼并可能产生多大的协同效应后，最初的合作伙伴关系最终可能以一家公司收购另一家公司收场。”

    投资者似乎认同这样的合作策略——公布这项决定后，默克的股价在当天上午上涨了2%。巴克瑞说：“如果默克想和百时美施贵宝抗衡，这样的合作就有可能让它获得一些优势。”

    这并不是制药企业为了更快地推出患者所需的治疗药物，第一次联手开发产品。但它们酷爱独家产品，但有时这会成为一个障碍。柯林斯曾为NIH设想过规模更大的合作，参与的公司可能多达十几家，目标是寻找治疗所有疾病的线索，而不仅仅是几种疾病。他说：“制药商的热情并不高。”NIH合作项目原本还计划把精神分裂症作为一个重点，“但到了要拿出真金白银的时候，参与者的整体规模却不足以让计划付诸实施”——主动参加的制药公司还不到四家。

    不过，专家们都认为大型制药商的合作意愿正在增强。这几年，柯林斯还一直在温和地鼓励制药公司“打开药品冷藏柜”，把研发失败的药品交给科学家，后者希望测试一下这些药品是否还有其他用途。“五年前首次提出这个想法时，有人告诉我，‘制药公司永远都不会那样做。它们绝不会放弃自己投入了这么多资金的药品。’”

    但最终，八家大型制药企业还是拿出了58种它们已经放弃的药品供人研究。去年夏天，NIH批准其中的九种药品进入试验阶段，投入的资金为2000万美元。赋予它们新用途的优势在于，这些产品已经通过了安全性测试，因此可以直接进入后期试验，从而将后备产品的研制时间从通常的14年压缩到了短短两年。柯林斯说，最快到今年年底，“我们就能知道是否能有药品研制成功。”（财富中文网）

    译者：Charlie         

    Analysts say that the teamwork between Big Pharma rivals might actually make them more competitive in the market. Merck's collaboration, for one, came at a time when it was racing several other companies to develop a first-of-its-kind cancer therapy, known as an anti-PD-1 drug, that has recently shown success treating a variety of tumors. "We haven't seen anything this exciting in cancer drugs that we can remember in a long time," says Steven Rees, head of U.S. equity strategy at J.P. Morgan Private Bank.

    But Bristol-Myers appeared to be winning, beating Merck to advanced trials, says T. Rowe Price biotech analyst Ziad Bakri. To catch up, Merck sought help from other companies whose cancer treatments might enhance its own -- even though it might mean splitting revenue from the final product. "With respect to owning both vs. collaborations, well, obviously, under the best circumstances, you'd like to own both, but you can't expect to discover everything yourself," Merck's president of research and development, Roger Perlmutter, said on a conference call.

    Going it alone, on the other hand, would be to risk losing out on an estimated $30 billion market for PD-1 altogether, says Rees, who suspects that the market will multiply as more uses of the drug are approved. "Sharing and being a more credible competitor is better than sticking with what you have and missing out," he says. And, he adds, such collaborations might spur more mergers and acquisitions: "What might start as a partnership might end as a company actually buying another company, when you see how many synergies could be realized."

    Investors seemed to support the team strategy, sending Merck's shares 2% higher on the morning of the announcement. "If Merck wants to compete with Bristol-Myers, all of these collaborations have the potential to give it some kind of advantage," Bakri says.

    It's not the first time that pharmaceutical companies have combined their drugs to bring needed treatments to patients faster, but their penchant for exclusivity has sometimes been a roadblock. Collins had envisioned a larger NIH collaboration between more than 10 companies that would seek clues to treating all diseases, not just a few. "Companies were not as enthusiastic about that," he says. Originally, the project planned to also focus on schizophrenia. "But when it came down to pulling out wallets and putting money down on the table, there wasn't a critical mass of companies to make it work," as fewer than four volunteered.

    Still, experts agree that Big Pharma's willingness to work together is growing. For several years, Collins has also been gently prodding companies to "open their freezers" of tried-and-failed drugs to scientists who want to test them for other possible applications. "Five years ago when this idea started to surface, I was told, 'Oh, companies will never do that. They won't be comfortable giving up a compound they've invested so much money in.'"

    But eight large pharmaceutical companies eventually provided 58 abandoned drug compounds for research, and last summer, the NIH green-lit trials for nine of them with $20 million. The advantage to the repurposing is that because the drugs have already passed safety tests, they can skip straight to more advanced trials, shortening the typical 14-year pipeline to as little as two: As early as later this year, "We'll be able to see whether we've hit any home runs," Collins says.